LR Drill Set 11, Question 6
Although annoying and a serious waste of paper,(55 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- ALegal restrictions should(18 more words not shown)
- BLegal restrictions should(17 more words not shown)
- CIf legal restrictions(17 more words not shown)
- DLegal restrictions can(23 more words not shown)
- ELegal restrictions should(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
An overloaded inbox could block the messages you actually need. That's a stronger complaint than simply finding junk mail annoying.
The passage contrasts two kinds of junk mail. Physical junk mail wastes paper and annoys recipients, but it doesn't interfere with mail service. A flood of junk email can make all of someone's email inaccessible. Let's accept that difference for this argument rather than substitute our own experience with spam filters or unsubscribe buttons.
Does that problem justify a legal restriction?
What we’re looking for
That's the step the author needs. Describing a bad effect doesn't by itself give us a rule about when the law should intervene. For the principle question, I'd look for a rule saying that communication which can obstruct a recipient's access to other communication should be restricted. The rule would turn the described email problem into a reason for the proposed regulation.
Working the answers
- A
This sets a requirement for restrictions: communication must be capable of negatively affecting others. Meeting a requirement doesn't by itself establish that restrictions should be imposed. A could allow us to consider regulation while leaving the decision open. We need a rule that takes the given harm and actually justifies the recommendation.
- BCorrect
This says any form of communication that might interfere with receiving communication should face legal restrictions. Junk email fits that description because an overload can make the recipient's email inaccessible.
The principle therefore carries us from the stated danger to the recommendation. It doesn't require harm to be certain in every case; the possibility of interference is enough under the rule, and that possibility is what the passage establishes.
- C
The rule starts by requiring legal restrictions on postal junk mail to be justified. The author deliberately leaves that question open. Without establishing C's starting point, we cannot use its sweeping conclusion about all forms of communication to justify restricting junk email.
- D
Saying restrictions can be imposed isn't the same as saying they should be imposed here. D would remove a possible obstacle based on the absence of a society-wide problem, but it doesn't tell us the stated email problem warrants regulation. Permission alone doesn't finish the author's recommendation.
- E
Again, 'only if' gives a requirement, this time improved efficiency. The passage doesn't establish that restrictions would make the communication more efficient, and even meeting that requirement wouldn't make restrictions automatically advisable. We need the direct justification B supplies, not another condition that must be satisfied before regulating.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.