PT16.S2.Q24 - role of the Uplandian supreme court

lsatnorrlsatnorr Monthly Member
edited June 17 in Logical Reasoning 5 karma

Can you help me break down this question? My understanding of the argument is: the two sub-conclusions are inconsistent with each other (outside principles vs constitution only), therefore the first sentence is not true. I selected answer choice E because it seemed like the most reasonable option, but I don't understand the structure of the argument and what does the "particular premise" in answer choice E refers to? Thank you!

Admin Note: Edited title. Please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question"

Comments

  • J ComfortJ Comfort Monthly Member
    14 karma

    I think this is an argument that leads to a contradiction. Mapped out it looks like this:

    Role: Protect HR
    ~Constitution Explicit --> SC Outside Constitution
    ~ HR Subject --> SC Inside Constitution

    Must use Constitution

    False(Role: Protect HR)

    In letter terms:

    A
    A-->B
    C-->~B

    C

    A is false

    E) basically states we could as easily conclude C is false instead of A which is easy to see when you substitute in the letters.

    Hope this helps!

Sign In or Register to comment.