The answer here is (D). Let's take a closer look at why.
The conclusion of this argument is, "it follows that where the police are well paid there will be a good legal system." We can diagram this statement since we know that "where" is treated just like "if" so it would introduce the sufficient condition and the other part of the statement is our necessary condition. The diagram of the conclusion would be as follows:
PWP ===> GLS
PWP = police are well paid GLS = good legal system
How do we know this? Well, we are told that "there cannot be a good legal system where the police are not well paid." Again we know that where introduces sufficient so we would diagram this as follows:
not PWP ===> not GLS
The contrapositive of this statement is that a well-paid police force is necessary to a good legal system. The contrapositive would be diagrammed as follows:
GLS ===> PWP
Notice that the conclusion is just reversing the contrapositive of our principle, which we know is incorrect because we DON'T JUST REVERSE. The author assumes that a well-paid police force is sufficient to a good legal system whereas in the principle cited to support this claim, a well-paid police force is actually necessary for a good legal system.
Answer choice (D) points out this exact flaw. The reasoning in the argument is not sound because it fails to establish that a well-paid police force is sufficient to guarantee a good legal system.
Hope this helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
SidraJuly 15, 2019
Sorry, I'm really not understanding the last part to your explanation. You said that the " author assumes that a well-paid police force is SUFFICIENT to a good legal system whereas in the principle cited to support this claim, a well-paid police force is actually NECESSARY for a good legal system." Then you go on to say that answer D is correct because the author fails to establish that a well-paid police force if SUFFICIENT to guarantee a good legal system.. but how does the author fail to do that? Doesn't he already establish that "where the police are paid well (sufficient) there will be a good legal system (necessary)?
My diagram:
Not PWP---> not GLS [ (contrapositive) GLS---> PWP ]
(authors conclusion) PWP--->GLS
RaviJuly 30, 2019
@Sidra,
Great question. Your diagram is correct.
You correctly identified the author's conclusion as well.
We're looking for why the reasoning isn't sound. The argument fails to establish something.
(D) says that the argument fails to establish that a well-paid police force is sufficient to guarantee a good legal system.
This is precisely what the argument has failed to establish. Look at the argument's conclusion. It's saying that a well-paid police force is sufficient to guarantee a good legal system. However, recall your diagram. Your diagram says that a good legal system is sufficient to guarantee a well-paid police force. Nowhere in the stimulus do we have any sort of information that establishes that a well-paid police force is sufficient to guarantee a good legal system, and this is why (D) is the correct answer, as it shows what the argument fails to establish (the argument fails to establish its conclusion).
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any other questions!
ReinaFebruary 7, 2020
@ravi but doesn't the conclusion have PWP as sufficient? That's why I don't see how the argument is missing this
ahambsch16July 6, 2020
Can I have a better explanation on how the correct answer is D?
VictoriaJuly 9, 2020
Hi @Reina and @ahambsch16,
The political theorist concludes that "where the police are well paid, there will be a good legal system."
PWP --> GLS
What evidence do they use to support this? They only have one premise/principle: "where the police are not well paid, there cannot be a good legal system."
Not PWP --> Not GLS GLS --> PWP
This question is definitely a little bit confusing in terms of the wording it uses. Essentially, answer choice (D) is correct because the premise does not support the conclusion.
The political theorist concludes that PWP is sufficient, but the principle that they cite in support of this tells us that PWP is necessary.
In this way, the argument fails to provide us with any evidence to support its conclusion (i.e. that PWP is sufficient). While the conclusion may state that PWP is sufficient, the argument itself is missing the information to support this conclusion.
The political theorist cites one principle and then uses an illegal negation/reversal to draw its conclusion. (It can be either a negation or a reversal depending on whether you use the contrapositive or not).
Negation P: Not PWP --> Not GLS C: PWP --> GLS
Reversal P: GLS --> PWP C: PWP --> GLS
Hope this is helpful! Please let us know if you have any further questions.
