Editorial: To qualify as an effective law, as opposed to merely an imp

Question

Editorial: To qualify as an effective law, as opposed to merely an impressive declaration, a command must be backed up by an effective enforcement mechanism. That is why societies have police. The power of the police to enforce a society’s laws makes those laws effective. But there is currently no international police force. Hence, what is called “international law” is not effective law.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the editorial’s argument?

(A) No one obeys a command unless mechanisms exist to compel obedience.

(B) If an international police force were established, then so-called international law would become effective law.

(C) The only difference between international law and the law of an individual society is the former’s lack of an effective enforcement mechanism.

(D) The primary purpose of a police force is to enforce the laws of the society.

(E) Only an international police force could effectively enforce international law.

Bunuel · Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

Hmm. Maybe a diagram?

Premise 1: Effective Law —> Effective Enforcement Mechanism 
  Premise 2: Police are one Effective Enforcement Mechanism 
  Conclusion:  International Police Force  —>  International Law Effective

The problem here is that police are  sufficient  for enforcement, but that doesn’t mean they’re  necessary  for effective enforcement (i.e., they are not the only effective enforcement mechanism).

So the argument seems to have assumed that one effective enforcement mechanism is the  only  effective enforcement mechanism. It has assumed that a sufficient condition has to be a necessary condition.

A) This is way too big and broad to be the answer for a necessary assumption question. The argument was entirely about international law. It never said anything about people not cheating at Scrabble against your granny, even though you could get away with it, just because it’s more fun not to cheat. This ain’t it.

B) The conclusion implied that an international police force was  necessary , but didn’t say that laws couldn’t still fail to be effective, even if there  was  a police force. (Remember, there can be many necessary conditions, lack of any one of which could cause something to fail. For example, maybe in order for a law to work, it also can’t be stupid (the prohibition of marijuana is stupid, that’s why nobody follows the law, regardless of whether or not there’s an effective enforcement mechanism), or for another example, suppose there was an international police force but it wasn’t willing to go to war with the U.S. or China, so the U.S. and China could just ignore whatever international laws they didn’t want to follow, international police force be damned. Anyway, this is not the answer.

C) The argument doesn’t assume that there aren’t other differences between international law and domestic law. Not even close.

D) The “primary purpose” of a police force could be simply to show off; the argument doesn’t tell us whether there are other purposes or not.

E) Yep. This  must  be true for the argument to make sense, which means it’s necessary. If this answer is not true, then there are other ways to effectively enforce international law, which would destroy the conclusion of the argument. This is what we predicted, and it’s our answer.

The answer is E.

PyjamaScientist · Answer

The entire argument in a nutshell is:

IF Police - -> THEN Enforcement of Law - -> THEN Effective law.
 
Answer choices (B) and (E) are the only relevant ones if you see them in light of the flow above.

(B) tries to establish a connection between  the Policing  and  Effective Law . You don't need any extra information to embolden that relationship.
(E) This option, on the other hand, turns the  sufficient condition  of  If Policing then Enforcement  to a  Necessary condition  i.e.,  Only if Policing then Enforcement . It takes away any other possibilities of any other cause for this effect. For eg., Maybe there was a social uprising that lead to civil vigilantes enforcing laws in the cities. That way you have an enforcing power besides Police and thus the Role of Police for International Laws doesn't really stand.

Thus (E) is the right choice in my opinion.

unraveled · Answer

Editorial: To qualify as an effective law, as opposed to merely an impressive declaration, a command must be backed up by an effective enforcement mechanism. That is why societies have police. The power of the police to enforce a society’s laws makes those laws effective. But there is currently no international police force. Hence, what is called “international law” is not effective law.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the editorial’s argument?

(A)  No one obeys a command  unless mechanisms exist to  compel obedience . - WRONG. No one is a bit way too strong a claim.

(B) If an international police force were established, then so-called international law  would become effective law . - WRONG. It make the requirement as conditional as in what need to be found out it  already makes it true by simply saying it instead of scrapping it and reaching out the conclusion.

(C) The only  difference  between international law and the law of an individual society is the former’s lack of an effective enforcement mechanism. - WRONG. Irrelevant.

(D) The  primary purpose  of a police force is to enforce the laws of the society. - WRONG. Like C it is irrelevant.

(E)  Only  an international police force could effectively enforce international law. - CORRECT. If there're other ways to do it then this makes no sense and thus the passage makes no sense.

Answer E.

saurabhmishrano1 · Answer

A) No one obeys a command unless mechanisms exist to compel obedience.

- This assumption suggests that individuals require enforcement mechanisms to comply with commands or laws. While this may be a reasonable assumption in many cases, the editorial focuses specifically on the effectiveness of laws in the absence of enforcement mechanisms at the international level. This assumption goes beyond the scope of the argument.

B) If an international police force were established, then so-called international law would become effective law.

- This assumption suggests a causal relationship between the establishment of an international police force and the effectiveness of international law. However, the argument does not explicitly claim that the mere existence of an international police force would automatically make international law effective. It rather focuses on the absence of such enforcement mechanisms currently.

C) The only difference between international law and the law of an individual society is the former’s lack of an effective enforcement mechanism.

- This assumption states that the sole distinction between international law and the law within individual societies is the absence of an effective enforcement mechanism for international law. This aligns closely with the argument's assertion that the effectiveness of law hinges on the presence of enforcement mechanisms. Therefore, if international law lacks such mechanisms, it cannot be effective law.

D) The primary purpose of a police force is to enforce the laws of the society.

- This assumption addresses the role of a police force in enforcing laws within a society. While it may be true that one of the primary purposes of a police force is to enforce laws, this assumption does not directly relate to the argument's focus on the effectiveness of international law due to the absence of an international police force.

E) Only an international police force could effectively enforce international law.

- This assumption directly aligns with the argument's conclusion that international law lacks effectiveness due to the absence of an international police force. The argument implies that without such a mechanism, international law cannot be effectively enforced. Therefore, if only an international police force could effectively enforce international law, it supports the editorial's reasoning.

VerbalBot · Answer

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.

Editorial: To qualify as an effective law, as opposed to merely an imp

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Editorial: To qualify as an effective law, as opposed to merely an imp

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards