PrepTest 108, Section 2, Question 12
Undoubtedly, one's freedom is always worth the risk(31 more words not shown)
A flaw in the argument's(5 more words not shown)
- Apresumes, without providing(11 more words not shown)
- Bfails to consider(15 more words not shown)
- Cgeneralizes inappropriately from(8 more words not shown)
- Dfails to establish(10 more words not shown)
- Eoverlooks the possibility(13 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Always? That's a much bigger claim than this example can support.
The person in the bare cement room has no hope of escape. Let's even grant the author's description that this person is not really living and has nothing to lose. That is an extreme form of lost freedom. It doesn't represent every situation in which someone's freedom is restricted.
Imagine someone who is not allowed to leave their country but can still spend time with their children and enjoy other parts of life. A dangerous escape could mean losing all of that. We don't have to decide what this person should do. The point is that the cement-room example hasn't settled the decision for them.
What we’re looking for
The author takes one desperate case and uses it to say freedom is always worth risking one's life for. That's the leap the answer needs to describe: a conclusion covering every case supported by one extreme example.
Working the answers
- A
The argument compares freedom with the risk of losing one's life. It doesn't rank freedom above every possible value. The author could believe that protecting another person matters more than one's own freedom while still making this argument. A expands the claim beyond what the author actually says.
- B
Whether someone can physically rebel is different from whether freedom would be worth a risk to obtain it. A person might have no available way to resist, but that doesn't resolve the author's claim about the value of taking a risk. This answer doesn't address the move from one example to an always-true conclusion.
- CCorrect
Being trapped in a bare room with no hope is a single extreme case. The author uses it to reach a universal conclusion about the value of freedom relative to risking one's life.
Even if taking that risk made sense for this prisoner, it wouldn't establish that it makes sense whenever anyone's freedom is restricted. Someone in a less desperate position could have much more to lose. C identifies the exact gap between the narrow example and the broad claim.
- D
The conclusion concerns one's own freedom. It does not tell us to risk our lives for the freedom of others. The author doesn't need to establish that separate claim to make the claim here, so failing to prove it isn't the flaw.
- E
Someone might be afraid to take a risk even when the risk is worthwhile, or willing to take one that isn't. Courage tells us about a person's willingness to act, not whether the action is worth its cost. The argument's problem is the support for “always,” not an assumption that everyone is brave.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.