There can be no individual freedom without the rule of law, for there is no individual freedom without social integri...

Ariella on April 27, 2017

C

I would think the answer would have to connect the "good life" to one of the other clauses. Why is this thinking incorrect?

1 Reply

Mehran on May 5, 2017

@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.