Logical Reasoning

PT18 · S2 · Q13 Because some student demonstrations

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

Because some student demonstrations protesting his scheduled appearance have resulted in violence, the president of the Imperialist Society has been prevented from speaking about politics on campus by the dean of student affairs.

Evidence

The dean prevented someone from speaking about politics on campus.

Denying anyone the unrestricted freedom to speak is to threaten everyone's right to free expression.

Conclusion

The dean's decision has threatened everyone's right to free expression.

Evaluate

Wow, campuses as safe spaces from controversial speakers? On Test 18? This is like pre-Internet era. I'm surprised this was even a thing they would think of back then. Anyway ...

The most important logical feature of this argument is that the second to last sentence provides a Conditional Rule:

if deny unrestricted → threaten everyone's freedom to speak right to free speech

We get a fact that triggers the rule (the dean restricted someone's right to speak), and then we get a conclusion that says the outcome of the rule (the dean threatened everyone's right to free speech).

Goal

Let's look for an argument with 1 conditional premise ... X → Y 1 factual premise ... X happened. 1 factual conclusion ... Y happened.

13.

The pattern of reasoning displayed above is most closely paralleled in which one of the following?

  1. Dr. Pacheco saved a child’s

    Bad Conclusion Match

    There was no conditional in the Evidence. Instead, the Conclusion was itself a conditional. The original conclusion is not a conditional statement. It's factual.

    6% picked this

  2. Because anyone who performs an

    Only One Premise

    This can't really match the structure of the original since there's only one premise here, whereas there were two premises in the original. This provides a conditional rule, but there's no second premise saying "Eddie performed an act of heroism" and then matching conclusion saying "Eddie acted altruistically rather than selfishly". Instead, it moves straight to a conclusion that is hypothetical in nature.

    3% picked this

  3. Correct

    In order to rescue a

    Why this is right

    We have a Premise that provides a rule: Heroism to save life → enrich lives of all We have a Premise saying that someone triggered that rule: Isabel heroically saved someone's life. And we have a Conclusion saying the outcome is true: Isabel enriched lives of all.

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

    80% picked this

  4. Fire fighters are often expected

    Bad Premise Match

    There are two premises here, but neither is a conditional rule. We're just being told two facts about fire fighters: - often expected to be heroic - not required to be heroic The conclusion validly pulls those two things together, but it's not the same as presenting a rule, saying that some entity triggered the rule, and then concluding that the entity therefore is the outcome of the rule.

    7% picked this

  5. Acts of extreme generosity are

    Weak Premise Match

    There is a conditional Premise: above call of duty → heroic Is there a premise that someone went above and beyond the call of duty? No, there's a generic premise that "acts of extreme generosity are usually above and beyond the call of duty". This triggers the rule, and the conclusion validly derives that "acts of extreme generosity are usually heroic". We could pick this answer if we didn't have (C) as a superior match, since it involves a specific entity who triggered a rule, rather than a generalization about a certain type of action that triggers a rule.

    4% 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