PrepTest 130, Section 3, Question 4
Politician: Suppose censorship is wrong in itself, as(46 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the politician's(12 more words not shown)
- Apresumes, without providing(11 more words not shown)
- Buses the term(9 more words not shown)
- Ctakes for granted(10 more words not shown)
- Ddraws a conclusion(8 more words not shown)
- Epresumes, without providing(12 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Refusing to participate in a film isn't obviously the same thing as censoring it. An actor could say, 'I don't want to be part of this,' while leaving the filmmakers free to make their film with someone else.
That distinction matters to the whole argument. The politician starts by asking us to suppose censorship is wrong in itself. Then the politician claims that this would make it wrong for an actor to turn down a role because the film promotes a view the actor finds abhorrent. But why should the rule against censorship govern that refusal? We haven't been shown that the actor is censoring anything.
What we’re looking for
I can accept that declining such a role needn't be morally wrong. That doesn't establish the politician's conclusion about censorship. To use the actor's refusal as a counterexample, the politician needs to show that it actually belongs to the category being discussed. For the flaw question, that is the missing connection to identify.
Working the answers
- A
The actor's own political beliefs aren't needed for the argument. The politician could apply the proposed rule to an actor who has never heard of modern liberalism. The issue is whether refusing the role counts as censorship, not whether the actor subscribes to a particular doctrine.
- B
The argument mentions liberals as people who hold the view being challenged. It doesn't reject the view merely because liberals hold it. The attempted objection is the actor example, and we need to assess the connection that example depends on.
- C
The politician doesn't accept a moral obligation to take every professional opportunity. In fact, the claim that an actor's refusal would be wrong is presented as an absurd result. Calling that result absurd is different from assuming that actors are obligated to practice their profession.
- D
The initial claim about censorship is introduced with 'suppose.' The politician provisionally considers it, tries to derive an unacceptable result, and then rejects it. That method isn't itself a contradiction between an accepted premise and the conclusion. The problem is that the supposedly unacceptable result hasn't been shown to follow.
- ECorrect
The argument needs the actor's refusal to constitute censorship in the sense relevant to the opening claim. Otherwise, even if the refusal is perfectly permissible, it tells us nothing about whether censorship is wrong in itself. The actor could decline involvement without preventing anyone else's expression, and the politician gives no reason to rule out that distinction.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.