Logical Reasoning

PT6 · S2 · Q20 Policy Adviser: Freedom of speech

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

Policy Adviser: Freedom of speech is not only a basic human right; it is also the only rational policy for this government to adopt.

Conclusion

Freedom of speech is not only a basic human right but also the only rational policy for this government to adopt.

Evidence

When ideas are openly aired, good stuff flourishes and bad stuff can by seen as such and responded to by rational argument.

Nothing's gained by forcing citizens to spread their thoughts in secret.

Evaluate

It doesn't seem like any of the big 3 Method moves apply here (Analogies, Faulty Implications, Alternatives).

We could somewhat say the author considers the faulty implications of an alternative plan: an alternate plan to freedom of speech is forcing citizens to spread their thoughts in secret. And the author says that nothing is ever gained by that.

The argument starts by discussing the positive consequences of the proposed action of free speech.

Goal

Ultimately, we just want to pick any answer with a true description. It might deal with comparing the consequences of free speech vs. the alternative.

20.

The policy adviser’s method of persuasion, in recommending a policy of free speech to the government, is best described by which one of the following?

  1. a circular justification of the

    Not Circular

    This answer describes the famous circular reasoning flaw. We've never seen a correct answer on Method that describes a famous flaw, for what it's worth. The author didn't say that free speech flourishes when free speech is allowed. She said that good ideas flourish.

    35% picked this

  2. advocating respect for basic rights

    Bad Evidence Match

    The author is advocating respect for free speech, in part on the basis of it being a human right. She isn't ever advocating respect for basic rights for their own sake. Even when it comes to free speech, which is a basic right, she's not saying we should just do it for its own sake. She's showing positive outcomes that come from free speech and negative outcomes that come from supppressing it.

    15% picked this

  3. Correct

    a coupling of moral ideals

    Why this is right

    There isn't much in terms of moral ideals, but supporting free speech by saying it's a basic human right would probably qualify. There's a lot of support relating to self-interest (good ideas flourish, bad ideas can be reacted to properly), and she contrasts that with lack of "anything gained" by the alternative. This probably wouldn't seem like a lock for a correct answer on the first pass, but ultimately it's matchable!

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

    42% picked this

  4. a warning about the difficulty

    Out of Scope (difficulty suppressing)

    The author never said that it was HARD to suppress freedom of speech, only that nothing is ever gained by doing so.

    4% picked this

  5. a description of an ideal

    Out of Scope (can't be achieved)

    This doesn't match and doesn't really make any logical sense. How could you convince someone of a policy by saying "it's an ideal situation that can't really be achieved"? This argument never gets into ideals or feasibility.

    5% 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