PrepTest 158, Section 3, Question 25
A government is justified in interfering with a(26 more words not shown)
Of the following judgments, which(8 more words not shown)
- AJerry's hobby, making(45 more words not shown)
- BIt is well(42 more words not shown)
- CBecause a motorcyclist(32 more words not shown)
- DBecause Zabziew Pharmaceutical(43 more words not shown)
- ETo further her(46 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
We need two things together: an increased risk of physical harm to other people, and an action that isn't motivated by a desire to help others. When both are present, the principle says government interference is justified.
Keep all the pieces. Harm to the person acting isn't harm to others. An unattractive result isn't necessarily physical harm. And an action that doesn't help anyone isn't automatically an action that increases danger.
What we’re looking for
The principle gives us a way to justify interference. It doesn't say this is the only way, so the absence of its conditions won't prove that interference is unjustified. For the application question, look for a situation meeting both conditions and a conclusion permitting the government to step in.
Working the answers
- A
Jerry's movies don't increase anyone's risk of harm, and his motive is to benefit his children. So the conditions that trigger this principle aren't present. But A goes on to say government interference is unjustified. The principle doesn't establish that conclusion; it gives a sufficient reason to interfere, not a complete list of every possible justification.
- B
An unkempt lawn makes neighboring property less attractive. Where is the increased likelihood of physical harm? The answer doesn't supply it, and it doesn't establish the relevant lack of a helpful motive either. We can't apply this rule just because someone dislikes the effect of a neighbor's conduct.
- C
The increased risk is to the motorcyclist who isn't wearing a helmet. The principle concerns physical harm to others. C may give someone a different reason to favor a helmet rule, but it doesn't meet the condition in the rule we're applying.
- D
The profit motive, explicitly contrasted with helping customers, supplies one condition. The other is missing. Research that has been of little help to sick people doesn't necessarily increase the likelihood of physical harm to them. Failing to provide a benefit and creating a danger are different things, so we can't justify suspending the license through this principle.
- ECorrect
Jill's stated motive is advancing her own political ambitions, rather than helping others. Her proposed speech would most likely cause a riot in which people would be hurt, supplying the increased risk of physical harm to others.
Both conditions are present, and the conclusion matches what the principle permits: the government was justified in preventing the speech. We don't need to supply our own view of the policy. We're checking whether the judgment follows the rule given, and E fits each part.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.