Quote:
Newspaper editor: Law enforcement experts, as well as most citizens, have finally come to recognize that legal prohibitions against gambling all share a common flaw: no matter how diligent the effort, the laws are impossible to enforce. Ethical qualms notwithstanding, when a law fails to be effective, it should not be a law. That is why there should be no legal prohibition against gambling.
Which one of the following, if assumed, allows the argument's conclusion to be properly drawn?
(A) No effective law is unenforceable
(B) All enforceable laws are effective
(C) No legal prohibitions against gambling are enforceable
(D) Most citizens must agree with a law for the law to be effective
(E) Most citizens must agree with a law for the law to be enforceable
This is an interesting question with a very well laid trap! The answer is
A but in order to understand this trap, we need to first understand the question and the argument itself. To start with, the question is asking us to
find or identify an assumption that allows the conclusion to be drawn. This means that we must first ID the conclusion correctly, since that is what will be affected by our answer. In this case, it is that
there should be no legal prohibition against gambling.
In order to arrive at this (or any) conclusion, there are premises (known, true facts) and assumptions (unstated beliefs of the person arguing) that come together. In this case, the main premises are that
it's impossible to enforce laws against gambling and that
if a law is ineffective it should cease to exist. What we need is something that links enforcement of a law to whether it should be a law, in this case, making the link between effectiveness and enforceability.
A - Makes this link clearly. Says that there's no law that is effective that is also not enforceable. Hence, it completes the reasoning of "Laws against gambling aren't enforceable -->
not enforceable means not effective --> not effective means it shouldn't exist" This answer is therefore
CORRECT.
B - Although this appears to state the same thing as A but in inverse, it is rather different in meaning. Enforceability is JUST ONE criteria that makes a law effective, it is not the only one. Just because a law is enforceable doesn't mean it is a law that works well or is effective.
OUTC - This is the big trap answer. It certainly helps the conclusion, and is necessary for the conclusion to work. However, the problem with it is that it is NOT an assumption. An assumption is by definition
unstated, and this fact has already been stated to us before. Hence, it is merely a restatement of a premise.
OUTD & E - These two options both talk about public perception of a law. However,
this is irrelevant to its enforceability AND effectiveness. People might disagree with a law and still follow it, and it still might be effective as well. The GMAT has attempted to present this point like it is relevant because our brains tend to reason this way in real life. However, for the specific conclusion of this question it is irrelevant.
OUTUltimately, this question becomes a whole lot easier once you correctly understand and ID the anatomy of the argument, and doing so will make you a lot quicker with solving CR as a whole!
- Matoo