Editorial: In order to encourage

Answer choices

1. A

   Consistent8% picked this

   We should not prevent the students from wasting the classroom time set aside for homework. But this does not mean that they may spend

   In this situation, an action is being restricted. Are told that the action wouldn't have negative effects on others? The opposite. The action being forbidden is labeled as "disruptive to others", so it does have negative effects on others, hence this principle doesn't apply to the situation (we can't violate a principle that isn't applicable).

   8%
2. B

   Consistent12% picked this

   The scientist who invented this technology is not the only one who should be allowed to profit from it. After all, there is no

   This prevents the action of "restricting profit to only the inventor". Are we told that this action has no negative effects on others? No, we're not. In fact, it's pretty common sensical that "keeping profits from others" has a negative effect on them (they don't get any money). This argument is using a Negated principle from the one we got. It is thinking: if an action (sharing profits) wouldn't harm others, then we should allow it Adhering to a negated-version of a Principle is not the same as contradicting a Principle. Given the principle: "If A, then B" Adhering to negated-version: X is not A. So, X is not B." Contradicting the principle: "X is A, but X is not B."

   12%
3. C

   Consistent22% picked this

   Even though public smoking may lead to indirect harm to others, it should not be banned. There are several other ways to eliminate this

   Since smoking does have negative effects (indirect harm) on others, this isn't what we're looking for.

   22%
4. D

   Consistent9% picked this

   Highway speed limits are a justified restriction of freedom. For drivers who speed do not risk only their own lives; such drivers often injure

   We're talking about speed limits restricting the action of speeding, and we're told that speeding can have negative effects on others (often injure or kill).

   9%
5. E

   Correct50% picked this

   It is not enough that consumable products containing harmful substances have warning labels. Many adults simply ignore such warnings and continue to consume these

   Why this is right

   We're talking about banning the act of consuming a product that contains harmful substances (i.e. beer, cigarettes, cannabis). Does consuming this product have a negative effect on others? There's nothing in the text that says it does. The text emphasizes that harm would come to he/she who consumes the substance. We might be tempted to bring in our outside knowledge of negative effects caused by second hand smoking, alcoholism, mediocre stoner comedies, etc., but on the face of it, consuming a harmful substance only harms you. This text doesn't say otherwise. Usually, on LSAT, we don't want to assume that "if it wasn't mentioned, it isn't applicable". There may very well be negative effects on others that come from consuming harmful substances. But the other answers made the negative effects on others explicit, whereas this one says nothing. Thus, it's the closest we can come to violating the principle from the available answers.

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

   50%