PrepTest 113, Section 3, Question 7
Social critic: The whole debate over the legal(60 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(7 more words not shown)
- AIf rock music(12 more words not shown)
- BThe law should(16 more words not shown)
- CViolent rock song(12 more words not shown)
- DIf rock musicians(13 more words not shown)
- EStopping the production(15 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Being allowed to say something doesn't settle whether saying it is a good idea. I can follow that distinction. A remark could be legal and still be cruel or irresponsible.
The comments about violence need care too. Violence existed before this music became popular. That tells us the music didn't originate all violence. The critic also says words can change how people see things and act. Those two ideas can coexist: something needn't create a problem from scratch to affect it later.
What we’re looking for
I don't have a precise policy recommendation to draw from these statements yet. The question asks what is most strongly supported, so let's check what each answer actually adds. We need a claim grounded in what the critic says, rather than a legal proposal or a measured effect we were never given.
Working the answers
- A
The critic separates what is legal from what ought to be said. A instead requires legal prohibition whenever the music is morally wrong. That rule isn't stated. Thinking a person should choose not to say something doesn't automatically mean wanting the government to forbid it.
- B
The critic says the debate about legal rights misses the point, not that a particular law needs changing. Mandating government censorship is an additional policy recommendation. We can't supply it just because the speaker raises concerns about the lyrics.
- C
Existing violence could be reflected in the lyrics while the lyrics also influence later behavior. Those aren't mutually exclusive possibilities. The fact that violence predates the music doesn't establish that the music never incites any violence. C rules out an effect the passage leaves open.
- DCorrect
This gives us a possible consequence of the power the critic attributes to words. If lyrics can affect how people think and act, musicians choosing to remove violent lyrics may help reduce violence. That connects the concern about speech with a voluntary choice, without introducing a government mandate.
The word 'may' matters, but it doesn't do all the work. A merely possible claim about an unrelated subject would still lack support. Here the limited possibility is tied to the passage's specific point about the influence of words.
- E
How much violence would disappear? The passage gives no measurement and no reason to attribute a large share of violence to these lyrics. Stopping them might have some effect without eliminating much violence. E turns a possible influence into a substantial guaranteed result, which goes beyond the evidence.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.