Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Hard

PT147 S4 Q24 Explanation

Politician: Democracy requires that there

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

TopicsRole

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

Politician: Democracy requires that there be no restrictions on the ability of citizens to share their ideas freely, without fear of reprisal. Therefore the right to have private conversations, unmonitored by the government, is essential to democracy. For a would thus be a setback for democracy.

What this question is testing

Role

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
24.

Which one of the following most accurately describes the role played in the argument by the claim that democracy depends on the ability of citizens to share their

Answer choices

  1. Not "only" Main Conclusion21% picked this

    It is a claim for which no support is provided, and which is used to support only

    The first part is correct, but it's wrong to say that this supports only the Main Conclusion, when we can see from the "therefore" that this supports Claim 2, the Intermediate Conclusion.

  2. Correct63% picked this

    It is a claim for which no support is provided, and which is used to support a claim that is itself used

    Why this is right

    This is an apt way to describe the Premise that sits at the beginning of a 3-part argument: therefore, thus, Premise ? Intermediate Conclusion ? Main Conclusion

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

  3. Wrong Role10% picked this

    It is a claim for which support is provided, and which is in turn used to support

    This answer choice describes the 2nd sentence. There's no support provided for the first sentence. We weren't told why democracy requires no restrictions on the ability to share ideas freely.

  4. Wrong Role5% picked this

    It is the argument's main conclusion and is inferred from two other statements in the argument, one of which is

    This answer choice describes the final sentence of the paragraph.

  5. Wrong Role1% picked this

    It is the argument's main conclusion and is inferred from two other statements in the argument, neither of which is

    We know the third sentence is the main conclusion. This answer is also wrong in claiming that the Main Conclusion is supported by dual premises, rather than being supported by a Premise that supports an Intermediate Conclusion.

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