Logical ReasoningDifficulty: Easy

PT151 S4 Q3 ExplanationPolitician: The legal right

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

TopicsMain Conclusion

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: The legal right to free speech does not protect all speech. For example, 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 different from each other, they are all likely to lead directly to serious harm.

What this question is testing

Main Conclusion

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
3.

In the statements above, the politician

Answer choices, explained

  1. Correct97% picked this

    it is legitimate to prohibit some forms of speech on the grounds that they are likely to lead

    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.

  2. Too Strong: certain Reversal (if anything)2% picked this

    a form of speech can be restricted only if it is certain that it would lead

    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.

  3. Unsupported Causality0% picked this

    in all but a few cases, restricting speech eventually leads directly

    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.

  4. Too Strong: any0% picked this

    any form of speech may, one way or another, lead directly

    The politician never claims that any form of speech leads to serious harm, only that certain forms of speech do.

  5. Out of Scope: several0% picked this

    all but one of several possible reasons for restricting freedom of

    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.

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