PrepTest 133, Section 3, Question 23
Essayist: It is much less difficult to live(67 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- ANo one should(16 more words not shown)
- BOne should associate(12 more words not shown)
- CIf having a(22 more words not shown)
- DNo one whose(30 more words not shown)
- EOne may choose(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
It's easier to enjoy your life when the people around you accept the way you choose to live. If your friends share many of your beliefs, you're more likely to find that acceptance. I can see the appeal of letting people choose their own circle.
Imagine someone choosing a relationship that their strict religious community disapproves of. Finding friends who accept that relationship could make everyday life less difficult. They would no longer face the same disapproval from the people they spend time with. That illustrates the benefit the essayist describes. It doesn't yet establish what freedoms everyone should have.
That's the jump: from “this freedom can make life more enjoyable” to “no one should be denied this freedom.” Even if we strongly agree with the conclusion, we still need a principle saying why the benefit justifies protecting the freedom. Someone who didn't think easier enjoyment mattered to what freedoms we should allow wouldn't be moved by the evidence alone.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for the principle that most helps justify the argument. My prediction is a rule treating the possibility of making life easier to enjoy as a reason not to deny people a freedom. Keep the conclusion's scope in mind: the essayist says no one should be denied the freedom to choose associates, not just that certain people would personally benefit from using it.
Working the answers
- A
This protects freedom to make lifestyle choices consistent with one's beliefs. The conclusion protects freedom to choose associates. Those freedoms are related, but the argument specifically says that acceptance by other people makes the lifestyle easier to enjoy. A doesn't directly connect that benefit of choosing one's associates to the conclusion that no one should be denied that freedom.
- B
This tells people what they should do: associate with at least some like-minded people. The essayist's conclusion is about what people should be free to do. We could think choosing particular friends is wise without having established a rule against denying anyone that choice. Advice about exercising a choice isn't the same as protecting the freedom to make it.
- CCorrect
The freedom is choosing the people with whom one associates. The premises explain how that freedom could help someone find acceptance and make an enjoyable life less difficult. C says that when a freedom can provide that benefit, no one should be denied it. It supplies the missing principle and reaches the same broad protection stated in the conclusion.
- D
This protects a narrower group: people whose enjoyment of life depends at least partly on having like-minded associates. The conclusion protects everyone's freedom, without first requiring that personal dependence. And D concerns preventing those people from having like-minded friends, while the conclusion protects the broader freedom to choose one's associates. It gives some support for a limited protection, but C better fits both the reason and the scope of the argument.
- E
This permits an individual to choose associates if doing so could make that individual's life easier to enjoy. The conclusion goes further: no one should be denied that freedom. C expressly takes a freedom's potential benefit to someone as grounds for protecting it for everyone. E stays tied to whether the choice benefits the person exercising it, so it doesn't justify the universal conclusion as directly.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.