Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: Çok zorSufficient Assumption

Legal Scholar: A statute cannot be considered legitimately authoritative unless it reflects the deeply held moral convictions of the populace it governs. Reflecting such convictions necessitates that the legislative body drafting the statute be completely insulated from the financial influence of special interest groups. The recently enacted Corporate Accountability Act was drafted by a committee heavily financed by the very industries it seeks to regulate. Therefore, the Act will inevitably face widespread civil disobedience.

Which one of the following, if assumed, enables the legal scholar's conclusion to be properly drawn?

  1. No statute can avoid facing widespread civil disobedience unless it is legitimately authoritative.Cevap
  2. B
    A legislative body that is completely insulated from the financial influence of special interest groups will invariably draft legitimately authoritative statutes.
  3. C
    Any statute that is legitimately authoritative will successfully avoid facing widespread civil disobedience.
  4. D
    The committee that drafted the Corporate Accountability Act allowed its financial backers to influence the substantive content of the statute.
  5. E
    It is morally justifiable for a populace to engage in widespread civil disobedience when subjected to a statute that is not legitimately authoritative.

Cevap

The correct answer is the statement indicating that no statute can avoid facing widespread civil disobedience unless it is legitimately authoritative.
The argument's premises establish a conditional chain: if a statute is legitimately authoritative, it must reflect moral convictions, which in turn requires insulation from financial influence. Because the Corporate Accountability Act was drafted by a financially influenced committee, it fails the necessary condition for insulation. By applying the contrapositive, the Act cannot be legitimately authoritative. The conclusion then abruptly claims the Act will face widespread civil disobedience. To logically guarantee this conclusion, we need an assumption bridging the gap: if a statute is not legitimately authoritative, it will face civil disobedience. The correct option provides exactly this bridge using 'unless' conditional phrasing: 'cannot avoid civil disobedience' unless 'legitimately authoritative' translates to 'If it is not legitimately authoritative, it will face civil disobedience'.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Map the conditional statements in the premises.
Legitimately Authoritative (LA) → Reflects Moral Convictions (RMC) → Insulated from Financial Influence (IFI).
To understand the chain of necessary conditions established by the legal scholar.
2
Apply the factual premise to the conditional chain.
The Corporate Accountability Act (CAA) was drafted by a heavily financed committee, meaning it is not insulated (~IFI). By contrapositive (~IFI → ~RMC → ~LA), the CAA is not legitimately authoritative (~LA).
To determine what can be proven about the Corporate Accountability Act using only the provided evidence.
3
Identify the logical gap between the inferred evidence and the main conclusion.
We have proven the CAA is not legitimately authoritative (~LA). The conclusion claims the CAA will face widespread civil disobedience (WCD). The gap is: ~LA → WCD.
A sufficient assumption must completely bridge the gap between what is proven and what is concluded.
4
Evaluate the options to find the one that establishes the necessary conditional bridge (~LA → WCD).
The phrase 'No statute can avoid WCD unless LA' translates logically to 'If ~LA, then WCD'. This matches the gap perfectly.
To ensure the selected option provides 100% deductive certainty for the conclusion.

Anahtar Kavram

Sufficient Assumption in Conditional Logic Chains
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Sufficient Assumption

Bu konudan daha fazla soru