Vague laws set vague limits on people’s freedom

Question

Vague laws set vague limits on people’s freedom, which makes it impossible for them to know for certain whether their actions are legal. Thus, under vague laws people cannot feel secure. The conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

A. People can feel secure only if they know for certain whether their actions are legal. 
B. If people do not know for certain whether their actions are legal, then they might not feel secure. 
C. If people know for certain whether their actions are legal, they can feel secure. 
D. People can feel secure if they are governed by laws that are not vague. 
E. Only people who feel secure can know for certain whether their actions are legal.

abhimahna · Accepted Answer

Hi  arvind910619  ,

This question is testing the construction If P, then Q. This construction implies ~Q --> ~P.

Any other form is wrong.

We are given If P(they donot know about legal actions), Q(they cannot feel secure).

It means only possible solution could be They feel secure --> they know legal actions.

A. People can feel secure only if they know for certain whether their actions are legal.

This is similar to what I mentioned above. Hence, correct.

C. If people know for certain whether their actions are legal, they can feel secure.

C is saying: If ~P --> ~Q.

As I mentioned above this type of case is not valid for if P then Q construction. Hence, C is incorrect.

Does that make sense?

Bunuel · Answer

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

The argument can be analyzed as follows:

Premise: Vague laws set vague limits on people’s freedom. 
Premise: Vague limits on people’s freedom make it impossible for them to know for certain whether their actions are legal. 
Conclusion: Under vague laws people cannot feel secure. There is a new element in the conclusion—“cannot feel secure”—that must be justified. There is also an unconnected element in the premise—“know for certain whether their actions are legal”—that will likely appear in the answer choice. Unfortunately, four of the answer choices contain those two elements. Only answer choice (D) does not contain both, and as (D) also contains the “vague law” element that appears in both a premise and the conclusion, we can eliminate (D) for the moment. Given the plethora of answers that remain in contention, first examine the conditional structure that is extant in the stimulus: 
Premises: Vague laws  Vague limits~Know actions are legal. 
Conclusion: Vague laws~Secure. Abstractly, this relationship is similar to: Premises: AB~C, 
Conclusion: A~D. The relationship that must be added to the premise to prove the conclusion is: ~C~D. Translating the diagram back to the terms used in our premise and conclusion, we need a statement like the following: ~Know actions are legal~Secure. Of course, the contrapositive of this statement would also be acceptable. Answer choice (A) is the contrapositive and thus (A) is correct.

Answer choice (B): This answer is incorrect because it has a different level of certainty than the conclusion: this answer uses the phrase “might not” when the conclusion uses “cannot.” If this flaw were corrected, the answer would be correct.

Answer choice (C): This answer is the Mistaken Reversal of the correct answer.

Answer choice (D): This answer was eliminated previously.

Answer choice (E): This answer is also the Mistaken Reversal of the correct answer. If you found yourself in trouble on this question, understanding that answers such as (C) and (E) are identical would allow you to eliminate them under the Uniqueness Rule of Answer Choices (that the correct answer must have unique properties).

chetan2u · Answer

Hi..

to answer this Q you have to understand WHAT exactly the following means

"Thus, under vague laws people cannot feel secure." MEANS that feeling secure is possible only when vague laws are not there..

Now contendos here would be A and C.

lets see the two choices

A. People can feel secure only if they know for certain whether their actions are legal. 
  this means EXACTLY as written above that -  feeling secure is possible only when vague laws are not there.. 
correct

C. If people know for certain whether their actions are legal, they can feel secure. 
 this tells us the OPPOSITE - knowing for certain... is possible on;ly when a person feels secure.. eliminate

A

arvind910619 · Answer

Hi mikemcgarry

I can not understand the difference between choice A and C .
Initially i thought the answer is D but later chose C as D out of context .
A and C look same to me in except how they are phrased .
I am confused between these two choices .
Please help me understand question such as this .

Thanks & Regards,
Arvind

yogesh610 · Answer

Why is D wrong. Please help me out.

If A happens B happens. But if A does not happened then B also didnt happnd.. So accordingly whats Wrong with D?

Posted from my mobile device

abhimahna · Answer

Hi  yogesh610 ,

Here is the catch. What implication you drew was wrong.

If A happens, B happens

MEANS

B doesn't happen--> A doesn't happen. It is not the way you wrote.

Hence, D is incorrect.

Does that make sense?

pranav.rihal · Answer

Any place to learn such causal relationships? pretty confusing if it should be p->q or q->p

thelastskybender · Answer

VL= Vague Law
K= Knowing
NK= Not knowing 
S= Secure
NS= Not secure 
(-->)= leads to

Now we have:

Premise VL--> NK
Conclusion VL-->NS

Now the assumption should be the logical link which is missing here.

Ask yourself under what condition VL-->NS given VL--> NK

You'll get this assumption:
  NK-->NS  => Now to feel secure I have to know (S can occur only when K occurs)
Remember K might lead to any of S or NS, we don't know. Hence, we can't conclude C.

nightblade354 · Answer

If you are struggling with premise/conclusion relationships, I'd highly recommend you read my CR guide (in my signature) and invest in the Powerscore CR book. Both will highlight how to approach these relationships. Learning how these things interact with each other is paramount to doing well on the GMAT/LSAT.

unraveled · Answer

Vague laws set vague limits on people’s freedom, which makes it impossible for them to know for certain whether their actions are legal. Thus, under vague laws people cannot feel secure. The conclusion follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

A. People can feel secure  only if they know for certain  whether their actions are legal. - CORRECT. POE helps.
B. If people do not know for certain whether their actions are legal, then they  might not  feel secure. - WRONG. Additional element of "might" that lets to change in meaning. Wish I had realised this prior to answer this one as correct.
C. If  people know for certain  whether their actions are legal,  they can feel secure . - WRONG. Reverse relationship of 
D. People can feel secure if they are governed by  laws that are not vague . - WRONG. Out of scope as only vague laws what we are concerned with.
E.  Only people who feel secure  can  know for certain  whether their actions are legal. - WRONG. Like C only. If people are certain then they feel secure.

Vague Laws = A
Vague limits = B
Knowing certainty = C
Action are legal = D
People feel secure = E

A & B ----> nC(uncertainty) / D
Therefore, 
A ----> E

What is then between C/D and E?
Though POE helps, but it is sure that we can say that only and only if people are certain, wherein nothing else matters, about their actions being legal, they feel secure.

Answer A.

PriyankaGmatIMD · Answer

Out of all explanation I read I still don't understand difference between A & C

A. People can feel secure only if they know for certain whether their actions are legal.

If then 
If they know for certain whether their actions are legal, then they can feel secure

If actions knows, then secure

C. If people know for certain whether their actions are legal, they can feel secure.

Same his here
if actions are legal, then secure

Posted from my mobile device

bb · Answer

Hi. Very tricky question. It is one of the hardest on the GMAT Club:

The difference between C and A is that  C is not exclusive.

A tells us that people only feel secure if they know that their actions are legal.  That is the ONLY way to feel secure .  Exclusive.   
 C tells us that people will feel secure if they know that their actions are legal, but that does not mean that's the only way to feel secure, so people could also feel secure if they locked their door at night or had a lot of money in the bank.  C tells us that this ONE OF POSSIBLY MANY ways to feel secure .  Not Exclusive.  And if there are other ways to feel secure, then our argument does not hold water or falls apart.

Bottom line: the difference is that A is saying this is the ONLY way while C says - this is one way of many.

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.

Vague laws set vague limits on people’s freedom

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

Vague laws set vague limits on people’s freedom

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