Logical Reasoning

PT137 · S2 · Q18 Censor: All anarchist novels

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

Censor: All anarchist novels have two objectionable characteristics: a subversive outlook and the depiction of wholesale violence.

Conclusion

It's permissible to ban an anarchist novel that would do more harm than good.

Evidence

All anarchist novels have a subversive outlook and depict wholesale violence.

Evaluate

There are two traits we know about anarchist novels, so the principle would need to take either or both of those traits and get us to the idea of, "permissible to ban". The weird thing is that the conclusion is not about all anarchist novels; it's about the subset of them that would do more harm than good.

18.

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

  1. If a novel has a

    Bad Conclusion Match Bad Premise Match

    This rule has "impermissible to ban" on the right of the arrow. We need "permissible to ban" on the right of the arrow. Also, this rule would not apply to anarchist novels, since they all have both subversive outlook and wholesale violence.

    4% picked this

  2. If a novel depicts wholesale

    Bad Premise Match

    This rule says: novel depicts banning it permissible wholesale and would do → to ban it violence Harm > Good We were never told that "banning anarchist novels would do more harm than good". The author was saying it's permissible to ban anarchist novels that themselves would do more harm than good. Presumably, by banning it, we would do more good than harm.

    11% picked this

  3. It is permissible to ban

    Reversal

    "only if" always acts like the conditional arrow, appearing just before the Right Side (necessary idea). This answer then looks like this: permissible has subversive outlook to ban a → and novel would do more than harm If this rule were flipped, it would work to get us from the premise to the conclusion. Any time you see an answer that, when diagrammed, would look like "If Conclusion ...", it's wrong.

    6% picked this

  4. Correct

    It is permissible to ban

    Why this is right

    This rule looks like this: novel has two or permissible to ban more objectionable → a novel that causes characteristics more harm than good Do anarchist novels have two or more objectionable characteristics? Yes, they all have at least two: depict wholesale violence and subversive outlook. So then according to this rule it's permissible to ban any anarchist novel that causes more harm than good, which matches out conclusion.

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

    76% picked this

  5. It is permissible to ban

    Bad Conclusion Match

    "only if" always acts like the conditional arrow, appearing just before the Right Side (necessary idea). This answer then looks like this: permissible to ban a → has at least one other novel that objectionable characteristic depicts WV We need "permissible to ban" on the right side, not the left side. Any time you see an answer that, when diagrammed, would look like "If Conclusion ...", it's wrong.

    4% 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