Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT131 S3 Q10 Explanation

Producer: It has been argued

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

TopicsSufficient Assumption

Keep going in LSAT Lab

  • 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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Producer: It has been argued that, while the government should not censor television shows, the public should boycott the advertisers of shows that promote violence and erode our country's values. But this would be censorship nonetheless, for if the public boycotted the advertisers, then they would cancel their advertisements, causing some shows a restriction of the shows that the public can watch.

What this question is testing

Sufficient Assumption

Your task

Find the assumption that, if added, guarantees the conclusion follows.

Common trap

Answers that only partly bridge the gap, leaving the conclusion unproven.

Winning move

Identify the new term in the conclusion and pick the choice that links it to the evidence.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question
10.

The producer's conclusion is properly inferred if which one of the following

Answer choices

  1. Too Weak6% picked this

    If there is neither government censorship nor boycotting of advertisers, there will be no restriction of the television shows

    This suggests by contrapositve that when there is a restriction of the television shows that the public can watch, that either there is government censorship or there is a public boycott of advertisers. Since this does not establish that there is government censorship, this answer is too weak.

  2. Supports a Premise6% picked this

    Public boycotts could force some shows off the air even though the shows neither promote

    This supports the premise that public boycotts could force some shows off the air, but does not advance the argument that doing so amounts to censorship.

  3. Weaken1% picked this

    For any television show that promotes violence and erodes values, there will

    This suggests that maybe such shows would not necessarily go off the air.

  4. Supports a Premise3% picked this

    There is widespread public agreement about which television shows promote violence

    This supports the premise that public boycotts would be effective at forcing some shows off the air. But that has already been established in the argument. The issue is whether forcing such shows off the air amounts to censorship.

  5. Correct84% picked this

    Any action that leads to a restriction of what the public can

    Why this is right

    This bridges the gap R ? C between restricting what people can watch and censorship.

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

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