Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT138 S4 Q23 Explanation

Libel is defined as

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

TopicsPrinciple-Strengthen

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

Libel is defined as damaging the reputation of someone by making false statements. Ironically, strong laws against libel can make it impossible for anyone in the public eye to have a good reputation. For the result of strong libel laws one will say anything bad about public figures.

What this question is testing

Principle-Strengthen

Your task

Break the argument into its conclusion and evidence, then do exactly what the question stem asks with that structure.

Common trap

Answers that sound relevant to the topic but don't connect to the argument's actual reasoning.

Winning move

Predict what a right answer must do, then test each choice against the conclusion-evidence gap.

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

The question
23.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning

Answer choices

  1. Negation11% picked this

    The absence of laws against libel makes it possible for everyone in the public eye to

    This negates the ~SLL → GR argument's conclusion

  2. Weaken13% picked this

    Even if laws against libel are extremely strong and rigorously enforced, some public figures will

    This attacks the SLL ↢some↣ BR argument's premise by suggesting that even with strong libel laws some people may acquire bad reputations.

  3. Weaken7% picked this

    If one makes statements that one sincerely believes, then those statements should not be considered libelous even if they are in fact false and

    This attacks the SLL ↢some↣ BR argument's premise by suggesting that even with strong libel laws some people may acquire bad reputations.

  4. Weaken17% picked this

    In countries with strong libel laws, people make negative statements about public figures only when such

    This attacks the SLL ↢some↣ BR argument's premise by suggesting that even with strong libel laws some people may acquire bad reputations.

  5. Correct52% picked this

    Public figures can have good reputations only if there are other public figures who

    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.

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