PrepTest 148, Section 3, Question 19
Ana: On libertarian principles, I oppose the proposed(43 more words not shown)
The dialogue provides the most(11 more words not shown)
- Ait is the(8 more words not shown)
- Bgovernment should be(4 more words not shown)
- Cthe proposed smoking(10 more words not shown)
- Dthe proposed ban(6 more words not shown)
- Ethere are cases(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Is smoking just the smoker's business when other people are standing nearby? Imagine someone smoking beside a group of children. The concern wouldn't have to be protecting the person who chose to smoke; it could be protecting the bystanders.
What we’re looking for
That's why Pankaj's distinction matters. Ana applies a rule about conduct that harms only the person doing it. Pankaj points out that the proposal leaves private smoking alone and restricts smoking in public. His response suggests that Ana has misunderstood whose protection the ban concerns. For their disagreement, I'd look for that specific point: is the proposed ban intended only to protect smokers from themselves, or does it address harm to other people? Pankaj doesn't have to reject Ana's general principle to reject her application of it here.
Working the answers
- A
Pankaj doesn't say the government should stop people from harming themselves. His point is that this ban applies to public smoking, where other people are involved. He could accept Ana's rule about purely self-directed harm while thinking it doesn't describe the proposed ban.
- B
A disagreement about what a particular proposal does needn't be a disagreement about libertarian principles. Pankaj doesn't attack that political framework. He points to a feature of this ban that Ana's objection fails to account for.
- CCorrect
Ana's stated reason for opposing the ban treats it as an attempt to prevent harm only to smokers themselves. Pankaj's reply challenges that picture: why allow private smoking but restrict public smoking if the purpose is simply to protect the smoker? The public/private distinction supports his implied view that protecting other people is involved. This is the specific disagreement their exchange gives us.
- D
Pankaj explicitly says the ban would prohibit smoking in public places. Ana doesn't deny that. Her objection concerns whether the government should impose it, not a competing claim that public smoking would remain permitted. We don't have support for opposite positions on D.
- E
Neither speaker gives a general position on all possible government regulation of private behavior. Ana objects to preventing conduct that harms only oneself; that isn't automatically a claim about every private act. Pankaj says this proposal allows private smoking, not whether every other regulation of private behavior would be wrong. We can't establish a disagreement on E's broader claim.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.