LSAT 143 – Section 4 – Question 25

LSAT 143 - Section 4 - Question 25

June 2015

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:48

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT143 S4 Q25
+LR
+Exp
Sufficient assumption +SA
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Link Assumption +LinkA
A
10%
161
B
53%
167
C
28%
161
D
6%
158
E
3%
158
154
164
173
 +Hardest 146.108 +SubsectionMedium

There can be no individual freedom without the rule of law, for there is no individual freedom without social integrity, and pursuing the good life is not possible without social integrity.

Summary
The author concludes that the rule of law is necessary for individual freedom. His support is another conditional claim: social integrity is necessary for individual freedom.
The author then makes an extra conditional claim: social integrity is also necessary for pursuing the good life. But note that pursuing the good life has no relationship to either individual freedom or the rule of law. So this claim doesn’t offer any “pathway” to the conclusion that the rule of law is necessary for individual freedom. Since there’s no way for this claim to support the conclusion, it’s not actually a premise and we can ignore it.

Missing Connection
The conclusion is that the rule of law is necessary for individual freedom, but the only support is that social integrity is necessary for individual freedom. We could reach the conclusion if we knew that social integrity is in turn sufficient for the rule of law.

A
There can be no rule of law without social integrity.
If the sufficient and necessary conditions here were reversed, this would be a sufficient assumption. Instead, this says that the rule of law is sufficient for social integrity. So the rule of law still isn’t necessary for individual freedom.
B
There can be no social integrity without the rule of law.
This says the rule of law is necessary for social integrity. And the argument’s premise tells us that social integrity, in turn, is necessary for individual freedom. So the conclusion follows: the rule of law is ultimately necessary for individual freedom.
C
One cannot pursue the good life without the rule of law.
Pursuing the good life isn’t necessary for individual freedom. So no relationship between the good life and the rule of law can possibly lead to a conclusion about what is necessary for individual freedom.

D
Social integrity is possible only if individual freedom prevails.
This says individual freedom is necessary for social integrity. We still don’t know how the rule of law fits into the picture. Since there’s no mention of the rule of law in the argument’s support, any sufficient assumption must at least introduce the rule of law.
E
There can be no rule of law without individual freedom.
This says individual freedom is necessary for the rule of law, whereas the conclusion we’re trying to prove is the reverse: the rule of law is necessary for individual freedom. (E) just scrambles the conditions in the conclusion—it doesn’t lead to that conclusion.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 143 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Reading Comprehension

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply