Logical Reasoning

PT157 · S3 · Q3 Bernard: We should not invite Carl

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

Bernard: We should not invite Carl to speak at the forum.

Bernard's Claims

1. We should not invite Carl to speak at the forum.

2. Carl’s views are clearly false, and worse, dangerous.

3. To encourage their consideration will not only legitimize them but also help to promulgate them.

4. We should avoid legitimizing or promulgating Carl's views, since we wish not to support their adoption.

Ayla's Responses

1. Disagrees (she's pushing for him to speak at the forum so that people will see the falsity of his ideas) 2. Agrees (that they're false) 3. Disagrees (she thinks convincing counterarguments at the forum will actually help people see that Carl's views suck) 4. no comment, possibly agrees (since she's pushing for Carl to speak at the forum so that people can realize his views suck)

Evaluate

Ayla doesn't explicitly state that Carl should be invited to speak at the forum. However, her statements provide support for the idea that she disagrees with Bernard's first claim and believes that Carl should be allowed to speak.

Ayla also doesn't explicitly state that that we should avoid legitimizing or promulgating Carl's views and not support their adoption. However, her statements provide some support for the idea that she agrees with Bernard about this. Ayla talks about combating "false views" and about seeing Carl's views for what they are.

Bernard states that Carl's views are false. We can infer that Ayla agrees. They appear to disagree about allowing Carl to speak at the forum. Bernard states that Carl should not be invited, but Ayla appears to suggest that it would be best to allow Carl to speak so that people can publicly challenge his views.

"Promulgate" means to promote an idea or make it widely known. If you didn't know this when reading Bernard's statements, but had a sense that it might mean "promote" or "spread," that's totally fine.

Goal

We'll look for an answer that addresses claim #1 or #3.

3.

The dialogue provides the most support for the claim that Bernard and Ayla disagree about whether

  1. one should always avoid legitimizing

    Too Strong

    It's hard to get anyone to agree to a universal claim. This is closer to Bernard's psychology, but we can't say from his paragraph that he thinks in 100% of situations, you should avoid legitimizing a view you hope is not adopted. Bernard is currently talking about Carl's ideas whether we should avoid legitimizing them. But he isn't to speaking to whether there's ever a case where you'd legitimize a view you hope isn't adopted (maybe a Pro-Choice candidate would hope that Pro-Life views aren't adopted by the government, but still recognize the legitimacy of Pro-Life views, acknowledging that in most cases they are based on an honest moral concern.)

    4% picked this

  2. people will see the falsity

    Too Strong

    This is just like (A), but now tipped toward Ayla's view. She is only speaking about Carl's particular views and about the particular forum being discussed. She thinks people will see the falsity of his ideas at this forum. She isn't speaking about 100% of situations in which people encounter forceful counterarguments. (She also wasn't ever talking about dangerous ideas)

    3% picked this

  3. Correct

    the best way to fight

    Why this is right

    This is just rephrasing of Ayla's first sentence, so she would clearly Agree. Does Bernard think that: allowing public express of false ideas isn't the best way to deal with them? Sure. He's worried about Carl's false ideas, and he isn't suggesting that we allow public expression of them. To the contrary, he's warning of the danger of doing so: we'd legitimize them and help them spread! So since he's advocating away from "allowing public expression", it's supportable that he doesn't think "allowing public expression" is the best way.

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

    91% picked this

  4. people who hold false views

    Too Strong

    Both speakers seem motivated by a desire to deal with false views, as though they are bad. So both would potentially agree with this. Bernard is probably acting more worried, so let's say he agrees. Does Ayla believe: people with false views usually don't pose any danger to society? We have no way of deriving that Disagree position from her paragraph. She sounds like she does worry about false views, but thinks the best way to expunge them is to expose them.

    1% picked this

  5. one should not encourage the

    Half Scope

    Both Bernard and Ayla appear to agree with this statement, or at least neither clearly disagrees. Bernard argues against legitimizing and promulgating Carl's views "since we wish not to support their adoption," which aligns with not encouraging adoption of dangerous views. So if Bernard is agreeing to this, we need to derive from Ayla's paragraph: it's okay to encourage the adoption of dangerous views! We definitely can't find support for that Disagree position. She doesn't even talk about dangerous ideas, and she's suggesting a better tactic (than what Bernard is proposing) for thwarting Carl's false ideas, so she's motivated by the same goal of undermining the adoption of Carl's views.

    1% 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