Vague laws set vague limits on people's freedom, which makes it impossible for them to know for certain whether their...

Ravi February 4, 2022

I'd diagram the stimulus like this:

Vague laws-->vague limits on people's freedom-->don't know for certain if actions are legal

Then the conclusion is people can't feel secure under vague laws

The general structure of this argument is A-->B-->C

And then D is concluded. We need a bridge from C-->D, so that we have A-->B-->C-->D.

So we're looking for something that says if people don't know if their actions are legal, they don't feel secure

A says the contrapositive of our anticipation. If knowing whether your actions are legal is necessary to feeling secure, you will not feel secure if you do not know about whether or not your actions are legal.

C is the inverse of something that would work. We need something that instead says that if they do not know for certain, they cannot feel secure.

Ashkan April 22, 2022

I chose a correct answer and diagramed the question in a chain method shown by Ravi. P1: VL ->LPF->~KAL. C: VL -> ~FS

After reading the question stem I knew that the correct answer must fill the gap b/w feeling secure and legal actions. So I diagrammed a contrapositive: P1: KAL->~LPF->~VL. C: FS ->~VL. Then, I end up with this chain: FS->KAL->~LPF->~VL. Answer choice A states my contrapositive chain that connects feeling secure to know that their action is legal. Did I use a correct method? Please help. Thanks

Emil-Kunkin April 26, 2022

Hi Ashkan,

Your process looks good to me! That said- it may be quicker once you have identified the gap to note what that gap is (and indeed its contrapositive) to only focus on that gap. We don't need the part of the chain earlier in most cases, although it is good to have it just in case.