Logical Reasoning

PT112 · S3 · Q20 Critic: Although some people claim

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

Critic: Although some people claim it is inconsistent to support freedom of speech and also support legislation limiting the amount of violence in TV programs, it is not.

Conclusion (rebuttal)

It is not inconsistent to both support freedom of speech and support legislation that limits the amount of violence on TV shows. rephrase: It is consistent to support both.

Evidence

We can limit TV content because the damage of violent TV is more harmful than the decrease in freedom of speech this causes.

Evaluate

The author is arguing that we're not contradicting ourselves if we say,

Isn't limiting violence on TV abridging free speech?

Yes, the author agrees. Such laws will decrease freedom of speech somewhat. But the harm of that is outweighed by the harm caused by violent TV.

We have competing values, and in the case of violent TV, it's more important to avert the harm of violent TV than it is to stick up for fully unrestricted free speech.

Goal

Since this argument involves competing interests, we're less likely to see a Conditional answer and more likely to see an answer setting Priorities, helping us to Weigh Tradeoffs.

The author is saying,

20.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the critic's reasoning?

  1. In evaluating legislation that would

    Weak Conclusion Match

    This answer is pretty tempting. Are we evaluating legislation that would impinge on a basic freedom? Yeah, kinda. We're talking about legislation that would impinge on freedom of speech. (Is that a basic freedom? The passage never called it that, so that part of this answer is weird.) So according to this rule, we should consider the consequences of not passing the legislation limiting violence on TV. And the author did consider those consequences. She assessed that the damage of not passing the legislation was more than the damage to freedom of speech caused by passing the legislation. So it feels like both halves of this answer match the paragraph. But nothing in this answer matches the language of the conclusion: it is consistent to support this legislation and also freedom of speech.

    15% picked this

  2. Correct

    One can support freedom of

    Why this is right

    This has the "1/2 Evidence, 1/2 Conclusion" language link we want to see in Principles. The author is arguing that "it is consistent to support freedom of speech while at the same time support this legislation that would undermine it". Why? Because the harm resulting from violent TV overrides the harm that the legislation would cause to freedom of speech. This answer has the structure, "One can do both A and B. They are compatible. They are consistent." That is the same as the structure of the Conclusion we're trying to support. And the language about "supporting freedom of speech while recognizing that it can be overridden by other interests" matches the evidence's discussion of the harm of violent tv overriding the harm to free speech.

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

    58% picked this

  3. When facing a choice between

    Bad Evidence Match

    We are indeed facing a choice of whether to restrict freedom of speech or not. But the evidence didn't consider what would make the greatest number of people the happiest. It considered whether the harm caused by the legislation would be outweighed by the harm prevented by the legislation.

    1% picked this

  4. If the exercise of a

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The exercise of our basic freedom of speech could sometimes take the form of violent content on TV, which does lead to some harm. So according to this rule, violent TV is an exercise of freedom of speech that should be restricted. The conclusion, however, isn't trying to prove that violent TV should be restricted. It's trying to prove that it is coherent / non-contradictory to simultaneously want to restrict violent TV while also supporting freedom of speech. To put it another way, this answer would help justify one of the author's two beliefs. But the conclusion is not about justifying either belief. It's about trying to prove that these two beliefs are compatible with each other.

    16% picked this

  5. In some circumstances, we should

    Bad Conclusion Match

    Like (D), this answer seems to reflect something this author would agree with, or something that would reinforce one of her beliefs. But it has nothing to do with justifying the language of the conclusion. The author thinks that in the circumstance of harmful violent TV, we should tolerate regulations (such as this legislation) that impinge on our basic freedom of speech. So this answer, like (D), agrees with the author's position of being pro-legislation. But the conclusion isn't saying, "we should approve of this legislation". It was saying, "It's not a contradiction to approve of this legislation while also supporting freedom of speech".

    11% 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