@ariella this is a Strengthen with Sufficient Premise question so we are looking for the answer choice that 100% guarantees the conclusion.
Let's break this argument down.
Premise #1: . . . for there is no individual freedom without social integrity . . .
IF ==> SI not SI ==> not IF
Premise #2: . . . pursuing the good life is not possible without social integrity.
PGL ==> SI not SI ==> not PGL
Conclusion: There can be no individual freedom without the rule of law . . .
IF ==> RL not RL ==> not IF
Notice the jump here.
We know that there is no individual freedom without social integrity but the conclusion introduces "rule of law," which was not included in any of our premises.
So in order for this conclusion to follow logically, we need to tie "social integrity" to "rule of law."
(B) says, "There can be no social integrity without the rule of law."
SI ==> RL not RL ==> not SI
When combined with Premise #1, this allows the conclusion here to follow logically:
IF ==> SI ==> RL not RL ==> not SI ==> not IF
Therefore, (B) here would be the correct answer.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
#JWOctober 5, 2019
So do we just ignore P2? Is it there as a distractor?
