PrepTest 145, Section 4, Question 17
Principle: The government should not prevent someone from(54 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(13 more words not shown)
- AThe government has(18 more words not shown)
- BSeveral studies have(30 more words not shown)
- CCalista firmly believes(21 more words not shown)
- DUnless there is(26 more words not shown)
- EMost people would(23 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Before applying this rule, check both parts: is the belief true, and would expressing it harm people generally?
The principle protects expression of a true belief when that expression would not cause the stated harm. The application says the government was wrong to stop Calista, but we haven't yet been given the facts needed to put her case under that protection. What if the claimed evidence doesn't exist? Or what if making the statement would harm people generally?
What we’re looking for
The question asks what most helps justify the application. Ideally, we'd establish both that Calista is right about the existence of evidence and that sharing it would be helpful rather than harmful. Support for only one part might still help, but an answer addressing both would be stronger.
Working the answers
- A
Conducting research doesn't tell us what the research found. The government could investigate a proposed link and find evidence for it, find evidence against it, or reach no clear result. We need support for Calista's claim, not just the fact that someone studied the topic.
- BCorrect
This supplies evidence for the claim Calista wants to express and says people would benefit from knowing it. That supports both relevant parts of the application: her belief that there is evidence is grounded in the studies, and sharing the information has a benefit rather than the harmful character that would trigger the exception.
The point is to apply the stated principle using the answer's hypothetical facts. We don't need to turn “studies found evidence” into a claim that a causal relationship has been conclusively proved. B most directly supports protecting this expression.
- C
Calista's sincere confidence that the information would help isn't the same as its actually helping. Nor does her confidence establish the truth of the underlying belief. The principle concerns a true belief and the effects of expressing it, not merely the speaker's good intentions.
- D
This adds another conditional rule about harmful claims but doesn't establish whether its condition applies here. We still don't know from D whether strong evidence supports Calista's statement. It also gives us no affirmative reason that expressing her belief would avoid harm, so it doesn't justify the government's being wrong to stop her.
- E
This describes how people would respond if convinced that their phone use raises their risk. That might help explain a benefit if the claim is true. But convincing people of a risk doesn't establish that the risk exists or that there is evidence for it. B more directly addresses both the evidence and the benefit of sharing it.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.