Logical Reasoning

PT133 · S3 · Q23 Essayist: It is much less difficult

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

Essayist: It is much less difficult to live an enjoyable life if one is able to make lifestyle choices that accord with one's personal beliefs and then see those choices accepted by others.

Conclusion

No one should be denied the freedom to choose who they associate with.

Evidence

If you choose to associate with people who share many of your personal beliefs, it's possible see your lifestyle choices accepted by others. And if you see your lifestyle choices are accepted by others, it's much less difficult to live an enjoyable life.

Evaluation

There's a little causal / conditional chain in the evidence:

choose to (possible to) much less associate see your difficult to w/ people → lifestyle choices → live an who share accepted by enjoyable your beliefs others life

If we're told that A leads to B, which leads to C, and the conclusion is , then we're assuming that .

Goal

In this case, A possibly leads to B, which leads to C, so we're assuming .

23.

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

  1. No one should be denied

    Overstretch

    The conclusion is about the freedom to choose whom you associate with. If we say, as this answer does, "You're free to make your own choices that accord with your beliefs", then we'd have to add some idea that "if you're free to make choices that accord with your beliefs, then you're free to associate with those you want. Even though that last move sounds reasonable, it's not given to us in any of the premises, so we should expect an answer will more explicitly deliver us the payoff of "you're free to associate with those you want".

    8% picked this

  2. One should associate with at

    Bad Conclusion Match

    The author is arguing that no one should be denied the freedom to choose their own associates, but this answer is actively encouraging people to associate with certain types of people. The author isn't trying to conclude whom you should associate with; she just wants you to have the freedom to choose that yourself. Since this answer doesn't speak to the "no should be denied the freedom" part of the conclusion, it doesn't justify it much.

    2% picked this

  3. Correct

    If having a given freedom

    Why this is right

    We were looking for something like "no one should be denied the freedom to do something that might possibly let them obtain C", which we could have re-written conditionally like this: if something might let you obtain C, you shouldn't be denied the freedom to do that. The "something" in this argument is "choosing your associates". As we laid out before, the freedom to choose your own associates allows you to pick some people who share your values, which makes it possible to see your lifestyle choices accepted by others, which makes it less difficult to live an enjoyable life. So, according to this rule, "no one should be denied that freedom (of choosing your own associates". This basically proves the wording in the conclusion.

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

    70% picked this

  4. No one whose enjoyment of

    Weak Conclusion Match

    The original conclusion would apply to all people. "No one should be denied the freedom to associate with whom they choose". This answer choice has a narrower scope and only applies to the subset of people whose enjoyment of life partially depends on some like-minded friends and associates.

    12% picked this

  5. One may choose for oneself

    Weak Conclusion Match

    This is very similar to (C). We do know that choosing who you will associate with can make it easier to live an enjoyable life. So in both answers, we trigger the principle and get to say the outcome. (C) No should be denied the freedom to choose whom they associate with (E) One may choose for themselves which people they want to associate with Which one is more similar to our conclusion? The conclusion was "No one should be denied the freedom to associate with whom they choose". It looks like (C) is a much better match. Another way to think about it --- the original argument is about depriving someone else of their freedom to choose their associates. (C) is a principle discussing whether or not you should prohibit someone else's freedom. This principle isn't aimed at person X, telling them not to deny person Y their freedom. It's aimed at person Y, giving them permission to choose their associates.

    8% 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