PrepTest 151, Section 4, Question 3
Politician: The legal right to free speech does(80 more words not shown)
In the statements above, the(3 more words not shown)
- Ait is legitimate(19 more words not shown)
- Ba form of(17 more words not shown)
- Cin all but(11 more words not shown)
- Dany form of(11 more words not shown)
- Eall but one(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Showing that speech is restricted doesn't yet show that the restriction is justified.
The politician first gives examples of restrictions: a dangerous practical joke, disclosure of military information or agents' identities, threats, and criminal agreements. Then comes an additional judgment: criminalizing these forms of speech is legitimate. The reason offered is that they are likely to cause serious harm directly.
I can see the concern about that harm. But someone who gives free speech overriding importance might still ask why preventing harm justifies the restriction. The argument needs that connection between the danger and what the government is justified in doing. Listing existing bans alone wouldn't supply it.
What we’re looking for
This question isn't asking us to repair the argument or decide whether we agree with it. It asks what the politician argues. My initial description would be that free speech has limits. Now look for the answer that captures what the politician says in support of those limits.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This captures the justification, not merely the fact that restrictions exist. The politician identifies some forms of speech likely to lead directly to serious harm and argues that prohibiting them is legitimate on that ground. We don't have to accept the reasoning to recognize the position it supports.
- B
Two changes matter. The politician says serious harm is likely, not certain. And giving that risk as a reason to justify these restrictions doesn't establish that it is the only possible reason to restrict speech. B adds both a certainty requirement and an exclusive rule that the argument never states.
- C
This makes restricting speech the cause of serious harm. The politician instead says that the specified forms of speech are likely to cause harm and uses that as a reason to restrict them. Keep the action causing the harm straight: the argument's reason runs from dangerous speech to a justified restriction, not from restriction to danger.
- D
The politician identifies several forms of speech with this danger. That doesn't establish that every form of speech can lead directly to serious harm. An ordinary harmless remark could remain outside the group being discussed. D turns examples of risky speech into a claim about all speech.
- E
One reason is offered in favor of restrictions. That isn't the same as considering several possible reasons and rejecting all the others. The politician hasn't told us that every other justification fails, so we cannot add that sweeping rejection to the argument.
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.