Logical Reasoning

PT151 · S4 · Q3 Politician: The legal right

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

Politician: The legal right to free speech does not protect all speech.

Evidence (For example, since)

It is illegal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded mall if the only intent is to play a practical joke; the government may ban publication of information about military operations and the identity of undercover agents; and extortion threats and conspiratorial agreements are also criminal acts.

They [these forms of speech] are all likely to lead directly to serious harm.

Conclusion

The criminalization of these forms of speech is justified. [The legal right to free speech does not protect all speech.]

Evaluate

There are a lot of moving pieces in this argument, but fortunately there are some clues which help us identify the role played by each statement.

The phrase "for example" at the beginning of the second sentence is generally a premise indicator, and it seems to function that way here. We're getting examples which support the claim in the first sentence. This indicates that the first sentence is a conclusion, and this second sentence provides evidence which supports that conclusion.

The word "since" in the final sentence is also a common premise indicator. We're seeing another conclusion – premise relationship in this sentence. is a conclusion supported by the evidence which comes after the word "since."

We seem to have two separate conclusions here, but their meaning is very similar. Saying is essentially the same as saying, If you wondered for a moment if one of these was an intermediate conclusion, that's a good question to ask. But these statements are similar enough for us to say that they're repeating the same idea.

Goal

The question stem here is a bit odd. It's not explicitly asking for the main conclusion of the argument. It's just asking for an answer that describes what "the politician argues." Since the whole point and purpose of an argument is to present and support the conclusion, this could be the same thing as asking for the politician's conclusion. We'll keep an open mind as we look at the answers, though, just in case one correctly describes the argument in a more general way. Beware of answers that include details which seem relevant but weren't actually discussed in the argument.

In the statements above, the politician argues that

Correct
it is legitimate to prohibit
Why this is right
"It is legitimate to prohibit some forms of speech" is yet another way to phrase the conclusion of the argument. The phrase "on the grounds of" should refer to the evidence supporting the conclusion, which it does: the evidence states that some forms of speech are likely to lead to serious harm.
Skill tested: Main Conclusion · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
97% picked this
a form of speech can
Too Strong: certain Reversal (if anything)
The evidence in this argument only states that certain forms of speech are likely to lead to serious harm, not that they're certain to do so. But even if we replace "certain" with "likely," this answer is the reverse of what we want. The politician's argument assumes that, if a form of speech is likely to lead directly to serious harm, then it can be restricted.
2% picked this
in all but a few
Unsupported Causality
The politician never claims that restricting speech leads to serious harm. The politician argues that certain forms of speech can lead to serious harm, not that restricting those forms of speech can cause harm.
0% picked this
any form of speech may,
Too Strong: any
The politician never claims that any form of speech leads to serious harm, only that certain forms of speech do.
0% picked this
all but one of several
Out of Scope: several
The argument only mentions one possible reason for restricting freedom of speech: the possibility that some types of speech can lead directly to serious harm. It never mentions other reasons, or claims that other reasons are unjustified.
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