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

Naz on September 16, 2014

This is a strengthen with sufficient premise question. Remember that a sufficient premise is sufficient for a conclusion, if and only if the existence of the premise guarantees or brings about the existence of the conclusion. Therefore, we need to find the premise that 100% guarantees the conclusion. The way you want to attack these answer choices is two-pronged. Ask yourself, does it strengthen? If it doesn't, then cross it out and continue to the next answer choice. If it does strengthen, however, then ask yourself whether or not the premise guarantees the conclusion.

Let's diagram this!

"for there is no individual freedom without social integrity,"

P1: IF ==> SI
not SI ==> not IF

"and pursuing the good life is not possible without social integrity."

P2: PGL ==> SI
not SI ==> not PGL

"There can be no individual freedom without the rule of law,"

C: IF ==> RL
not RL ==> not IF

Answer choice (B) states: "There can be no social integrity without the rule of law."

(B): SI ==> RL
not RL ==> not SI

Does this strengthen the question? Yes. We can use the transitive property to connect P1 to (B) like so: IF ==> SI ==> RL to conclude: IF ==> RL, which is our conclusion. Thus, answer choice (B) strengthens the conclusion.

Does this answer choice guarantee the conclusion? Yes. As you can see above, answer choice (B) leads us straight to the conclusion: IF ==> SI ==> RL. The existence of answer choice (B) 100% brings about the existence of the conclusion.

Hope that helps! Please let us know if you have any other questions.