Logical Reasoning

PT144 · S2 · Q5 Political scientist: Some analysts point to

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

Political scientist: Some analysts point to the government's acceptance of the recent protest rally as proof that the government supports freedom of popular expression.

Conclusion

The government does not support freedom of popular expression.

Evidence

Supporting freedom of popular expression means accepting the expression of ideas that the government opposes as well as those it supports.

The message of the protest rally was one that the government entirely supports.

Evaluate

To prove you support freedom of expression, you have to show that you can tolerate views you oppose.

The government tolerated the recent protest rally, but it wasn't a view they oppose. They support the view.

The conclusion would be correct to say, . It goes to far by saying, "the government doesn't support freedom of expression". (This is an Unproven vs. Proven False flaw, not that it really helps us here)

GIVEN THAT this rally doesn't show the government tolerating a view they oppose,

HOW CAN WE ARGUE THAT the government does support freedom of expression?

We'd probably need to say, .

Goal

The author is Assuming a Difference. They're assuming that if the rally hadn't been a message the government supported, then the government wouldn't have tolerated it.

5.

Which one of the following is an assumption that is required by the political scientist's argument?

  1. The government helped to organize

    Irrelevant Causality: helped organize

    We know that the government endorsed the view of the protest rally, but the author doesn't need to assume the government was actively involved in organizing it. The argument would be no worse if the government had nothing to do with it, but did approve of its message.

    0% picked this

  2. The message of the recent

    Too Strong: didn't concern any

    This is a very strong (and thus suspicious) idea. If we negated it and said, "The message of the rally did concern some function of the government", does that weaken the argument? No. We know the government supported the message of the rally, so maybe the rally concerned some function of the government and the government supported what they were saying (maybe it was a protest against corporate funding of elections and demanding publicly financed campaigns, which the government actually supports).

    2% picked this

  3. Correct

    The government would not have

    Why this is right

    By negating this, we get: "The government would accept a protest rally whose message it opposed." This severely weakens the argument because it suggests a scenario where the government might still support freedom of expression, thus undermining the political scientist's claim. This is the Assumed Difference.

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

    97% picked this

  4. There are groups that are

    Out of Scope

    Out of Scope: inhibited fear of backlash The author doesn't need to assume there are any groups who are afraid of the wrath of the government and thus won't stage a protest. If we negate this, then no group is inhibited by fear. They may still fearfully stage the protest, but the fear doesn't stop them from staging the protest. That's still totally compatible with the author's view, that the government doesn't support freedom of expression and wouldn't have been so tolerant of a protest whose view they opposed.

    0% picked this

  5. The government feared a backlash

    Irrelevant Causality: feared backlash

    This invents a totally new subplot that the author was not clearly thinking. It seemed like the author was just thinking that this protest happened to be agitating for something the government also supports. The author didn't need to assume that the government's support was coerced out of fear of backlash.

    0% 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