PrepTest 147, Section 4, Question 24
Politician: Democracy requires that there be no restrictions(45 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(29 more words not shown)
- AIt is a(18 more words not shown)
- BIt is a(25 more words not shown)
- CIt is a(18 more words not shown)
- DIt is the(22 more words not shown)
- EIt is the(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Does government monitoring automatically mean people fear punishment? The politician hasn't explained that connection. A government could monitor conversations without punishing anyone, and we would still need to consider whether the monitoring itself makes people afraid to speak. The argument moves from freedom without fear of reprisal to a right to unmonitored conversations without spelling out that step.
What we’re looking for
But the question asks for the role of the first claim, not for the gap in the reasoning. Ask what supports what. The politician gives no reason for the initial claim about what democracy requires. That claim then supports the right to private, unmonitored conversations. Finally, that right supports the judgment that Internet monitoring would be a setback for democracy. The middle statement does two jobs: it receives support and then provides support.
Working the answers
- A
The first part is right: no support is provided for the claim we're asked about. But 'only the argument's main conclusion' misses the middle step. The claim first supports the right to unmonitored private conversations, and that right then supports the final judgment about Internet monitoring.
- BCorrect
This follows the argument's chain. The unsupported starting claim about democracy supports the right to unmonitored conversations. That right is itself used to support the final conclusion that government monitoring of Internet conversations would set democracy back. B captures both steps instead of collapsing them into one.
- C
No support is supplied for the first claim. The politician simply states it and reasons from it. A claim can support another claim without being supported itself; C incorrectly gives the starting statement both roles.
- D
The first statement is not the main conclusion. The argument doesn't use the later statements to prove that democracy requires free expression without fear. It uses that requirement as the basis for those later statements. D reverses the direction of support.
- E
Again, the target claim is the starting point, not the final conclusion. In addition, the two later statements aren't independent pieces of support: the private-conversation claim supports the Internet-monitoring judgment. E misses both the first statement's role and the relationship between the later ones.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.