Logical Reasoning

PT10 · S1 · Q20 Government official: Clearly, censorship exists

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Government official: Clearly, censorship exists if we, as citizens, are not allowed to communicate what we are ready to communicate at our own expense or if other citizens are not permitted access to our communications at their own expense.

Conclusion

Public unwillingness to fund certain activities cannot be described as censorship.

Evidence

Definition: censorship exists if (a) we can't communicate at our own expense, OR (b) others can't access our communications at their own expense.

Evaluate

The flaw: the definition gives sufficient conditions for censorship (X or Y → censorship). The argument moves from "neither X nor Y is happening here" to "no censorship." That's an illegal negation — denying the antecedent. Even if the listed conditions aren't met, censorship could still exist on other grounds (the definition specified sufficient, not necessary, conditions).

Goal

Find an answer with the same flaw: stating sufficient conditions for X, then concluding "not those conditions, therefore not X." Same denial-of-antecedent move.

20.

The flawed reasoning in the government official’s argument is most parallel to that in which one of the following?

  1. All actions that cause unnecessary

    Bad Validity Match

    This argues from "all unnecessary-harm actions are unjust" — a "necessary cause" claim about unjust acts. It then reasons that if a just action causes harm, the harm must be necessary. That's contraposition (just → not unnecessary-harm), not denial of the antecedent. Different flaw, different shape.

    7% picked this

  2. Since there is more to

    Bad Validity Match

    This argues from "good manners are more than just polite forms" to "you can't tell on first meeting." That's a different structure entirely — a claim about complexity producing an evidentiary limitation. No sufficient-condition-denying-the-antecedent move.

    4% picked this

  3. Acrophobia, usually defined as a

    Bad Validity Match

    This argues from shared name to shared origin — that's an etymological/equivocation flaw, not a denial-of-antecedent flaw. Different structure.

    4% picked this

  4. Correct

    There is no doubt that

    Why this is right

    Same flawed pattern. The first sentence states a sufficient condition for heroism: if the doer risks his/her own life to benefit another, the deed is heroic. The argument then concludes that an action endangering only the doer's reputation is not heroic — denying the antecedent (no life risk → no heroism). Just like the original, it treats sufficient conditions as if they were the only conditions for the concept. Same shape, same flaw.

    Skill tested: Parallel Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    69% picked this

  5. Perception of beauty in an

    Bad Validity Match

    This argues that since beauty perception varies, no object is beautiful. That's a generalization-from-relativity flaw, not a denial-of-antecedent flaw. Different structure.

    16% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free