Logical Reasoning

PT105 · S4 · Q24 If an external force intervenes

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

If an external force intervenes to give members of a community political self-determination, then that political community will almost surely fail to be truly free, since it is during the people's struggle to become free by their own efforts that the political virtues necessary for maintaining freedom have the best chance of arising.

Conclusion

If an external force intervenes to give members of a community political self-determination, then that political community will almost surely fail to be truly free.

Evidence (since)

It is during the people's struggle to become free by their own efforts that the political virtues necessary for maintaining freedom have the best chance of arising.

Evaluate

It's easy to see the structure of this paragraph: "Conclusion, since Premise", but it was very hard for me to compute any of this on a first read. When that happens in RC or LR, I try to use concrete examples to anchor my understanding.

If an external force intervenes to give members of a community political self-determination Okay, can we think of when an external force would give members of a community political self-determination?

I guess after World War II, the United Nations was an external force that gave members of the Jewish community political self-determination .... Maybe there's some high school where the student government is walked all over by the faculty, until some external force (angry parents) intervene to give that community of students some political self-determination.

... that political community will almost surely fail to be truly free Okay, so the Jewish state of Israel will almost surely fail to be truly free ... This student government will almost surely fail to be truly free. Why is that? The author is saying the Jewish community and the students will fail to be truly free because ...

it is during the people's struggle to become free by their own efforts that the political virtues necessary for maintaining freedom have the best chance of arising.

Okay, the author is essentially saying . Like Dad saying to Grandpa,

Our author is saying the same thing about political self-determination and freedom. If you, as some external force, just give the political self-determination, then the recipient will mistreat it and not be truly free. They need to earn it themselves in order to develop the character that will be needed to keep themselves truly free.

Goal

We want to anticipate Principle answers by saying, "If Premise, then Conclusion". The way we were understanding the argument before, that would sound like,

If you don't earn X then you won't be through your own efforts able to hold onto X

But is that really what the premise said? The premise actually says this:

don't earn X → won't have best chance yourself of developing virtues necessary for X

Okay, so the argument's move from premise to conclusion is really this:

If an external force gives you self-determination, rather than you earning it for yourself, then you won't have the best chance of cultivating the virtues you need to hold onto freedom. Thus, you will almost surely fail to be truly free.

The author is making this move:

don't do the thing will almost that provides best → surely fail to chance of X have X

24.

The reasoning above conforms most closely to which one of the following principles?

  1. Political freedom is a virtue

    Word Salad

    This answer is literally just grabbing words from throughout the paragraph and creating a brand new meaning with them. The author never called political freedom a virtue, for example.

    1% picked this

  2. Self-determination is not the first

    Weaker Match

    This does feel like an inference we can pull out of the author's argument. If the author thinks it's during the struggle to become free that these other values have the best chance of arising, it sounds like some of these virtues arrive before the people's struggle to become free (to have self-determination) has been fully realized. But this answer is lost within the premise. It doesn't seem to connect the premise to the conclusion at all.

    5% picked this

  3. Correct

    A community cannot remain free

    Why this is right

    As a conditional, this answer would look like this: you haven't community developed certain ? cannot remain political virtues free This pretty well matches the Evidence (on the left of the arrow) and the Conclusion (on the right of the arrow). The correct answer to Principle questions usually has this form. This didn't play off the "best chance" language I was suspecting, but it's just saying when an external force gives a community its freedom, the people don't go through the struggle to become free by their own efforts, and thus don't (have the best chance of) developing certain political values. The author goes from there to the conclusion that this community will almost surely fail to be truly free. There are a lot of tiny issues with this answer. "Fail to be free" vs. "cannot remain free" is not a great match. "didn't develop certain virtues" vs. "didn't have the best chance of certain virtues arising" is not a great match. But this is the best available answer for matching up language to the Evidence and to the Conclusion (i.e. our job on Principle questions).

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

    62% picked this

  4. Political self-determination is required if

    Bad Premise Match

    This conditional would say don't have can't remain political self ? truly free determination Did the premise say "communities who are given their political self-determination by some intervening external force don't have political self-determination"? No, that's self-contradictory.

    15% picked this

  5. Real freedom should not be

    Out of Scope: should

    Nothing in the argument contained any normative language like "should". We might come to this answer as a takeaway, based off the Conclusion. But this question stem isn't asking for something we might conclude from the Conclusion. It wants us to pick a principle that mimics the move from Evidence to Conclusion, so half the answer matches the Evidence and half matches the Conclusion. Nothing in the Evidence or the Conclusion matches "should".

    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.

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