PT57.S3.Q12 - editorial: to qualify as an effective law

cacrv567cacrv567 Alum Member
edited January 2016 in General 171 karma
http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-57-section-3-question-12/
I got confused by A because if you negate it, the argument falls apart. If you negate A and assume people obey commands even without mechanisms to compel obedience, then you can no longer assume that international law is ineffective just because there is no police force.

wait, is it because international law would guide nation states, not people?

I definitely like E, but thought A was the absolute necessary choice when compared to E, after a negating test.

Thanks in advance for the help!

Comments

  • DumbHollywoodActorDumbHollywoodActor Alum Inactive ⭐
    7468 karma
    When NA problems involve bridging a gap, it really helps to see that gap before you jump into the answer choices. Let’s break the argument core down.

    Conclusion: What is called "international law" is not effective law.
    Premise: there is currently no international police force.
    Premise: The power of the police to enforce a society’s laws makes those laws effective.

    There is also a subsidiary conclusion

    Sub Conclusion: That is Why societies have POLICE.
    Premise: To qualify as an effective law, as opposed to merely an impressive declaration, a command must be backed up by an EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT mechanism.

    Gap: The argument equates effective enforcement with police (or if NO police, then no effective enforcement). And then takes that equivalence from the sub-conclusion and applies it to the main conclusion involving international law.

    Elimination: (A) negated is “ Some people obey commands even though mechanisms to compel obedience don’t exist.” I can see how that might seem like it’s destroying the argument, but does the argument have anything to say about the people being policed? The people’s obedience is completely out of the argument’s scope. (B) has the correct elements, but it mixes up the logic. (C) law of individual society is out of scope. (D) enforcement is great, but it doesn’t bridge effectiveness. (E) looks good.

    Selection: (E) negated is “Some international law cannot be effectively enforced by an international police force”. Kills the argument because it focuses on the effective enforcement and the police. (E) is the correct answer.

    Hope this helps
  • c.janson35c.janson35 Free Trial Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐
    2398 karma
    The problem with A, in my opinion, is that it does not discuss international law. Obeying a command is very broad, and the fact that some people may obey a command even without mechanisms to compel obedience, does not destroy the argument. Think of it this way: if 1 toddler did not obey his parents even though his parents had no obedience mechanisms like time out in place, does that destroy the argument that international law is ineffective because there is no police force? Also, the argument does not discuss the idea of obeying commands at all, just they if a law is effective, it must be backed by effective enforcement.

    Hope this helps!
  • gs556gs556 Member Inactive Sage
    edited July 2015 568 karma
    1. Effective laws need enforcement mechanisms
    2. There is no international police force
    ______________________________
    International law is not effective law


    Argument's assumption: International Police = ONLY enforcement mechanism

    This assumption is glaring. What if international law could be enforced in other ways such as trade sanctions?


    (A)
    @cacrv567 said:
    assume people obey commands even without mechanisms to compel obedience
    The fact that SOME people might obey commands without enforcement mechanisms is out of scope. So what? The argument has already said (premise 1) that effective laws need enforcement. Don't attack the premise, that's not what you're tasked with.
  • c.janson35c.janson35 Free Trial Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐
    edited July 2015 2398 karma
    Lol I hope somewhere in these 3 lengthy answers you can find the help you are looking for
  • Luluc1234Luluc1234 Alum Member
    150 karma
    I wrote the arg break down because (E) should be a fairly quick answer to pick since it is the only one that has "international police force" occurring as the necessary or its negation as sufficient. Remember we want to get from premise to the conclusion and negation of "international police force" is the primary premise.

    P1: To qualify as an effective law, ..., a command must be backed up by an effective enforcement mechanism.

    P2: But there is currently no international police force.

    C: What is called "international law" is not effective law.

    Let's look at the conclusion:
    What do we know about the effective law? We know from P1 that effective law --> effective enforcement. What do we know about "international law?" We know from P2 that they have no international police force.

    How to get to the conclusion that "IL" is not effective law? we need to link IL, lacking international police force, with negating "effective enforcement," the necessary condition of effective law. (E)

    (A) In my opinion,the quickest way to get rid of A is to recognize it is not even talking about law or international police force. You might be assuming that "[individual] obeys a command" = "effective law" and "mechanism to compel obedience" = "international police force." But such assumptions are never justified because the scope and meaning are quite different.

    Hope this helps!
  • Luluc1234Luluc1234 Alum Member
    150 karma
    @gs556 said:
    1. Effective laws need enforcement mechanisms
    2. There is no international police force
    ______________________________
    International law is not effective law

    Guess was editing when you wrote this. Mine was a bit repetitive.
  • nicole.hopkinsnicole.hopkins Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐
    7965 karma
    @c.janson35 said:
    Lol I hope somewhere in these 3 lengthy answers you can find the help you are looking for
    Haha! Yeah see, we gunnin' after BR'ing this test last night ... @DumbHollywoodActor and @c.janson35 . You guys are my inspiration. <3 <3 <3
  • DumbHollywoodActorDumbHollywoodActor Alum Inactive ⭐
    7468 karma
    This feels like the most boring game show ever created
  • nicole.hopkinsnicole.hopkins Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐
    7965 karma
    @DumbHollywoodActor said:
    This feels like the most boring game show ever created
  • cacrv567cacrv567 Alum Member
    171 karma
    thanks everyone - definitely understand now, so I just have to keep this in my brain for the future...
  • nicole.hopkinsnicole.hopkins Inactive Sage Inactive ⭐
    7965 karma
    @cacrv567 said:
    thanks everyone - definitely understand now, so I just have to keep this in my brain for the future...
    That's a great attitude!
Sign In or Register to comment.