Logical Reasoning

PT113 · S3 · Q7 Social critic: The whole debate

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

Social critic: The whole debate over the legal right of rock singers to utter violent lyrics misses the point.

Premises

(1) The legal-rights debate misses the point. (2) Legally, very little can't be said. (3) But not everything that may legally be said ought to be said. (4) Violence predates this music, but words have the power to change how we see and act.

Evaluate

Notice the critic's structure: legal rights are not the question; what we ought to do is. And words can change behavior. Putting those together: even if violent lyrics are legal, voluntarily not producing them — i.e., self-censorship — could change the way people see and act, which could in turn reduce violence.

Goal

Find an answer that says: voluntary restraint by rock musicians could help reduce violence in society.

7.

Which one of the following is most strongly supported by the passage?

  1. If rock music that contains

    Unsupported

    The critic explicitly says legal rights and moral judgments are different — "Legally, there is very little that may not be said. But not everything that may legally be said ought to be said." That's the opposite of saying moral wrongness implies illegality. (A) collapses the distinction the critic insists on.

    3% picked this

  2. The law should be changed

    Unsupported

    The critic isn't calling for government action. The whole opening move ("the debate over the legal right ... misses the point") signals the critic isn't arguing about laws or government intervention. The point is about what musicians ought to do voluntarily, not about state-imposed censorship.

    2% picked this

  3. Violent rock song lyrics do

    Contradicts

    The critic explicitly says words "have the power to change the way we see and the way we act" — i.e., words can be a cause, not just a reflection. (C) says the opposite: violent lyrics merely reflect and don't incite. That contradicts the passage.

    13% picked this

  4. Correct

    If rock musicians voluntarily censor

    Why this is right

    This is the most directly supported inference. The critic says (1) the legal route isn't the answer (so we're looking at voluntary action), (2) not everything legally allowed ought to be said, and (3) words can change how people see and act. Combine those: musicians voluntarily restraining their violent lyrics — i.e., voluntary self-censorship — may change how people see and act, which could in turn help reduce violence. The cautious "may" matches the conservative tone of the inference.

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

    81% picked this

  5. Stopping the production of rock

    Too Strong

    "Eliminate much of the violence" is a far stronger claim than the critic supports. The critic says words can change how we see and act — that's a real but modest causal claim. Going from "words affect behavior" to "stopping violent lyrics would eliminate much of the violence in society" is a huge leap. The critic doesn't come close to that strong a forecast.

    2% 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