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
The result of strong libel SLL → ~BR laws is that, for fear of lawsuits, no one will say anything bad about public figures.
Strong laws against SLL → ~GR label can make it impossible for anyone in the public eye to have a good reputation.
The argument assumes ~BR → ~GR that if no one has a bad reputation, then no one can have a good reputation.
Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the argument?
The absence of laws against
This negates the ~SLL → GR argument's conclusion
11% picked this
Even if laws against libel
This attacks the SLL ↢some↣ BR argument's premise by suggesting that even with strong libel laws some people may acquire bad reputations.
12% picked this
If one makes statements that
This attacks the SLL ↢some↣ BR argument's premise by suggesting that even with strong libel laws some people may acquire bad reputations.
6% picked this
In countries with strong libel
This attacks the SLL ↢some↣ BR argument's premise by suggesting that even with strong libel laws some people may acquire bad reputations.
17% picked this
Public figures can have good
Why this is right
This bridges the gap GR → BR between public figures having a good reputation and other public figures having bad reputations.
Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
54% picked this
Continue the review in LSAT Lab
Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.
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.