Q22 - If violations of any of

[dlclay7]

The conclusion: is a society ought to never allow any of its explict rules to be broken without impunity

Supporting premise: Because people will act in ways that are cahotic if violations of society's rules if they go unpunished.

I am looking for the flaw in the argument? (vulnerable to criticism)


the argument confuses the routine nonpunishment of a violation of a rule with sometimes not punshining violations of the rule.

Please go through the answers and help me analyze this argument.

I understand the core but not sure about this answer?
It is the routine vs sometimes in the answer.
Is this to mean the sometimes breaking of a rule should be ok not to punish but routine breaking of rule is not same thing. There is confusion in the the use of sometimes versus routine.

[aileenann]

Sure - no problem.

Firstly, with respect to your core, I would add that there is a second premise - namely the first sentence of the argument, which states that if violations of any rule routinely go unpunished, people won't have moral guidance. I think this premise is really important because this more directly connects with the flaw when we match up the core, thinking about the premises and the conclusion. Namely, this premise talks about *routinely* whereas the conclusion talks about *never* - these two don't match up - the negative of never is sometimes, which is not the same as routinely. Similarly, the negation of routinely would be not routinely, not never.

To see why this is a flaw, consider a more concrete argument. Imagine I were to say the following:

If society routinely permits vehicles to exceed the speed limits, we will all suffer.
Therefore if we permit ambulances to speed, we will all suffer.

I sense here the problem will be more obvious. Just because vehicles should not *routinely* speed does not mean there are never good reasons to speed (such as carrying patients to the hospital). Does that make sense?

If it does, the correct answer will make sense for this argument too. The correct answer (D) gets at the heart of this very issue, pointing out that routinely not punishing a violation is not the same as sometimes not punishing a violation.

Let's eyeball the other answer choices briefly.

(A) reverses the logic. We know when chaos will result, but we don't know anything about when chaos will not result.

(B) is entirely out of scope. We don't know anything about different kinds of problems.

(C) is also completely unsupported - the argument makes no such inference about chaos.

(E) is too narrow and also unsupported - the argument does not distinguish among different kinds of violations. Rather the argument is concerned about whether violations are routine/unpunished.

I hope this helps. This was a really interesting question, so thanks for posting to the forum. Please let me know if any of this is unclear or if you have any follow-up comments or questions!

[sgorginian]

This answer was very helpful!

I was between A and D. I thought it was A because the author assumes (takes for granted that) a society will avoid chaos as long as NONE of the rules are broken, and that's flawed.

Well...the author is wrong because maybe chaos will result as a result of something else! So he is flawed in assuming that if you just avoid non punishment of rules then everything will be ok.

Obviously A is the wrong answer, but don't understand why my thought process is wrong. Please help! =)

[aileenann]

Thanks for your follow-up question!

I think what might have gone wrong in your approach is that the argument does not actually assume that there are no other causes of chaos besides lack of moral guidance.

The argument says that because people who lack moral guidance can act in many different ways, chaos will result. And also that if moral violations go unpunishd, people won't have moral guidance.

So I'd spell this out as:

not punished -> no moral guidance -> chaos

The only other thing we know then is the contrapositive:

no chaos -> moral guidance -> punished

I would retranslate this back into English as, if there is no chaos then we know that people must have moral guidance which means that infractions of the moral code do not routinely go unpunished.

So all we know is that not punishing these infractions will definitely lead to chaos. This is not the same as making the assumption that this is the only cause of chaos.

What I'd recommend you do to make this most intuitively clear to yourself is simply to go back and read the argument, with the background idea in your head that the author does think there are other causes of chaos but is just especially concerned about this one. If you read the paragraph with this in mind, you will see that nothing in the argument contradicts this.

[msw99]

Hi,

I understand the equivocation between routinely and Never but don't understand the wording of answer choice D: "sometimes not punishing."

I noticed this in your explanation:

Namely, this premise talks about *routinely* whereas the conclusion talks about *never* - these two don't match up - the negative of never is sometimes, which is not the same as routinely. Similarly, the negation of routinely would be not routinely, not never.

Can you please elaborate on the negation? I don't understand. Thank you!!

[aileenann]

Sure thing! I always want to know if something in one of our explanations isn't clear Moreover, this is an especially tricky question (you can tell because it's # 22, the trickiest portion of every LR section) so it's important to understand every bit of it if you are aiming for a 170+ LSAT score.

This is a flaw question - asking us to find where the argument is "most vulnerable to criticism." From experience, and from the MLSAT curriculum, we know that flaw questions often relate to the assumption that is being made in an argument, which means a test taker should be particularly attuned to issues related to assumptions: scope, degree, and logic gaps.

To my mind, the logic gap I noticed in the argument was that the author went from a premise about allowing violations to routinely go unpunished to a conclusion that society should never allow violations to go unpunished. The author seemed to assume that there were only two logical possibilities: allowing violations routinely to go unpunished and never allowing violations to go unpunished. But of course there is a middle ground, and this is what (D), the correct answer, gets at. A flaw in the argument is that the author doesn't confront the possibility of a society that occasionally - even just very very rarely - allows a violation to go unpunished. There might be all sorts of good reasons to do so, but the author of this argument ignores this possibility - a logical flaw.

Does that make a little more sense If not, please let me know!

[msw99]

Thank you for responding! Your description makes complete sense - I just think that the wording in answer choice D seems odd. I was looking for an answer choice that stated the confusion between "routinely" and "never" or something about failing to consider sometimes not punishing. Guess, I need to improve my ability to match my thinking with the LSAT!.

Thank you!

[aileenann]

I'm glad to hear it!

This would be a good one to go over again a couple more times before your LSAT - think about what was tricky and what the more general patterns you could recognize in the future would be.

[zainrizvi]

I understand the flaw but I'm still confused by the wording of the answer choice. Where does the second half of the answer choice("with sometimes not punishing violations of the rule") fit in?

[ohthatpatrick]

If we go back to Aileen's analogous argument:

If society routinely permits vehicles to exceed the speed limits, we will all suffer.
Therefore if we permit ambulances to speed, we will all suffer.


Let's make the conclusion more identical to the Q22's conclusion.

If society routinely permits vehicles to exceed the speed limits, we will all suffer.
Therefore, society should never let any vehicle exceed the speed limit.


Our common sense tells us it's okay to sometimes let vehicles speed (for example, ambulances). The logic of the premise doesn't contradict this. It doesn't say "If any vehicle speeds, society will suffer." It allows for exceptions. (LSAT loves to test people on these nuances.)

The trigger for mass suffering is ROUTINELY letting people speed. If they only SOMETIMES speed, we don't necessarily trigger mass suffering.

If you understand the trigger for mass suffering is ROUTINELY letting people speed, then the conclusion should say, "Therefore society should not let vehicles routinely exceed the speed limit."

[note: even with this, we are assuming that society should act in ways that prevent mass suffering]

However, the author must be thinking that if people SOMETIMES speed, it triggers mass suffering, since he's concluding "society should never allow any vehicle to speed".

As you guys said, the disconnect is between "never allow any nonpunishment" vs. "don't allow routine nonpunishment".

Choice (D) is expressing that confusion in terms of what would trigger chaos: the premise thinks that "routine nonpunishment" would trigger chaos, whereas the conclusion thinks "some/any nonpunishment" would trigger chaos.

Flaw answer choices that have the syntax of "confuses X with Y" / or "mistakes X for Y" are correct when the first half matches the thinking of the evidence and the second half matches the thinking of the conclusion.

The answer choice is essentially pointing out that the author's conclusion is a distorted interpretation of his evidence. (and, as is often the case, it's too strong and narrow of an interpretation)

Hope that helps.

[clare.ess]

Hi,

Can someone explain further why E is an incorrect answer?

Is it because the scope matches in the stimulus and option E (both discuss rules in general, not a specific subset of rules)?

[timmydoeslsat]

I am going to address this post without looking at the previous comments so that I can provide a possible fresh perspective.

To me, with this identify the flaw question stem, the ability of prephrasing an answer is important here. I would want to head into the answer choices with an idea of what the flaw is.

The argument can be summed up as:

Routinely not punishing violations of explicit rules leads to chaos

Therefore, a society should not let any of its explicit rules be broken without punishment.

This is the core of the argument.

The flaw is in its jump between the evidence provided and solution given.

This argument would be better had its conclusion been that a society should not let routinely not punishing violations of explicit rules occur. Or that a society should routinely punish those who violate explicit rules.

But to state that a society should not let any of its explicit rules be broken without punishment is extreme.

This argument goes from:

Routinely not punish ---> Always punish

So my prephrase for this flaw is that it gives too demanding a solution from the evidence given.

A) The arguer does not make this mistake:

We are told that Routinely not punishing can lead to chaos.

The arguer is not assuming the negation of this, in other words:

~Routinely not punishing ---> ~Chaos

That is the classic confusing suff/necessary condition error. And that is not what is at issue.

B) The issue of why rules were made is not at issue.

C) Any rule? We are only talking about explicit rules. The author is specific in his conclusion by stating explicit rules.

D) This matches our prephrase. The idea of sometimes not punishing a rule....if this were actually in the argument....and we knew that this would lead to chaos, then this would help validate the author's conclusion should always punish.

The author is using the idea of routinely not punishing to encompass this idea of sometimes not. Otherwise, the author could not draw his conclusion of should always punish the violation of any explicit rule.

E) This argument is not concerned with consequences of the breaking of rules. It is concerned with consequences of not punishing the breaking of rules.

The jump is in the idea of routinely not and never.

[ohthatpatrick]

Let me just tack on that whenever flaw answer choices start with any of these phrases,
TAKES FOR GRANTED
PRESUMES, WITHOUT PROVIDING JUSTIFICATION,
ASSUMES WITHOUT WARRANT

then you can treat whatever idea that follows just as if it's an answer choice on a Necessary Assumption question (since all three of those phrases are just synonyms for "the author assumes ...").

Did the author have to assume that "all of society's explicit rules result in equally serious consequences when broken"?

No. As Timmy said, this was about whether or not rulebreakers were punished, never about the consequences of breaking rules.

And since extreme terms like "all" and "equally" are huge red flags when it comes to Necessary Assumption answer choices, so too should they be when you encounter them in Flaw answer choices prefaced with "takes for granted"/"presumes"/"assumes".

[MayMay]

quick question here--


the argument is assuming that we don't want chaos, right?
So if an answer said something like takes for granted that chaos is a bad thing, would it be a good answer?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

quick question here--


the argument is assuming that we don't want chaos, right?
So if an answer said something like takes for granted that chaos is a bad thing, would it be a good answer?

Yep, that's right!

[saurabhgis]

I have a problem with (A).

In my understanding the question has two problems.
a) The examiner is going from routinely to never
b) Let's, for arguments sake, imagine that the examiner had said "a society ought not routinely allow any violations to go unpunished". Is this a correct conclusion? Isn't he assuming, to reach this conclusion, that in order to not get chaos, a society should not routinely allow any violations to go unpunished? If that's the assumption isn't that a mistaken negation and that mistake is mentioned in (A).

quick question here--


the argument is assuming that we don't want chaos, right?
So if an answer said something like takes for granted that chaos is a bad thing, would it be a good answer?

Yep, that's right!

[eve.lederman]

Super simple question based on the explanations for this question: How do we know anything about exceptions to violations of explicit rules?

Thanks!

[maryadkins]

Super simple question based on the explanations for this question: How do we know anything about exceptions to violations of explicit rules?

Thanks!

Unfortunately I don't understand your question. Can you please rephrase in light of the discussion/explanations above what remains unclear?

[contropositive]

If we go back to Aileen's analogous argument:

If society routinely permits vehicles to exceed the speed limits, we will all suffer.
Therefore if we permit ambulances to speed, we will all suffer.


Let's make the conclusion more identical to the Q22's conclusion.

If society routinely permits vehicles to exceed the speed limits, we will all suffer.
Therefore, society should never let any vehicle exceed the speed limit.


Our common sense tells us it's okay to sometimes let vehicles speed (for example, ambulances). The logic of the premise doesn't contradict this. It doesn't say "If any vehicle speeds, society will suffer." It allows for exceptions. (LSAT loves to test people on these nuances.)

The trigger for mass suffering is ROUTINELY letting people speed. If they only SOMETIMES speed, we don't necessarily trigger mass suffering.

If you understand the trigger for mass suffering is ROUTINELY letting people speed, then the conclusion should say, "Therefore society should not let vehicles routinely exceed the speed limit."

[note: even with this, we are assuming that society should act in ways that prevent mass suffering]

However, the author must be thinking that if people SOMETIMES speed, it triggers mass suffering, since he's concluding "society should never allow any vehicle to speed".

As you guys said, the disconnect is between "never allow any nonpunishment" vs. "don't allow routine nonpunishment".

Choice (D) is expressing that confusion in terms of what would trigger chaos: the premise thinks that "routine nonpunishment" would trigger chaos, whereas the conclusion thinks "some/any nonpunishment" would trigger chaos.

Flaw answer choices that have the syntax of "confuses X with Y" / or "mistakes X for Y" are correct when the first half matches the thinking of the evidence and the second half matches the thinking of the conclusion.

The answer choice is essentially pointing out that the author's conclusion is a distorted interpretation of his evidence. (and, as is often the case, it's too strong and narrow of an interpretation)

Hope that helps.

Thank you for the explanation. My question is this: what do you mean by
"Flaw answer choices that have the syntax of "confuses X with Y" / or "mistakes X for Y" are correct when the first half matches the thinking of the evidence and the second half matches the thinking of the conclusion."
Did you mean that would be the correct answer when there is a mismatch between premise and conclusion? that's one flaw I learned from the Manhattan LR 4th edition book. Can you exemplify this paragraph by the stimulus thanks.

[maryadkins]

Aileen says it well, I think: "The correct answer (D) gets at the heart of this very issue, pointing out that routinely not punishing a violation is not the same as sometimes not punishing a violation."

Confuses X (routinely not punishing) with Y (sometimes not punishing)

Mistakes X (routinely...) for Y (sometimes...)

That's how it would apply here.