PT36.S3.Q20 - critic: although some people complain

wildernesswilderness Alum Member
edited November 2016 in Logical Reasoning 133 karma
Here's the link to the question: https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-36-section-3-question-20/

Okay. I'm confused why (A) is incorrect. Isn't the stimulus just an instance of us evaluating legislation... that is, aren't we determining whether or not legislation that would limit TV programs is more (or less) harmful than the consequences of us not doing so?

Furthermore, in the stimulus, we definitely do consider the consequences of not passing the legislation...

Comments

  • SamiSami Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 7Sage Tutor
    10806 karma
    Hi Wilderness : )


    So, in Psudo Sufficient Assumption questions (actually any stimulus), its very very important to keep in mind what the conclusion is.

    The conclusion for this stimulus is "it is not". The "it" is a referential phrasing for "its is not inconsistent to support freedom of speech and legislation that limits the amount of violence on TV programs". In other way our conclusion is that "it is consistent to support both freedom of speech and legislation that limits it".

    Lets that a look at our answer choices:

    A) this answer choice talks about "when evaluating legislation, we should etc etc". But are trying to conclude about how we should evaluate legislation in our stimulus? Nope. Our stimulus is about how it is "consistent to support both".

    B) This answer choice starts out with "one can support basic freedom of speech while at the same time recognizing it can be overriden by other interests". Bingo, this matches what we were trying to conclude in our stimulus, that it is consistent to support both freedom of speech and legislation limiting it if there are overriden by other interest that are more harmful.

    I hope this helped. :)
  • wildernesswilderness Alum Member
    edited November 2016 133 karma
    @Sami

    Thank you very much! That helped a great deal. I didn't realize that this was a PSA question. Thanks for clearing it up :)

    For others who are having the same problem as me:

    We have the premise that:

    (P1) The damage done by violent programs when we don't censor > the decrease in free speech that results when we do censor

    (P2) ???

    (C) It is not inconsistent to support both freedom of speech and limiting violence done on TV programs

    ----

    When we look at it like this, answer choice (A) doesn't provide the bridge we need to get from P1 to C, while B clearly does.

    Thanks again @Sami !

    ----

    I just thought of a better way to think about this!

    (P1) The damage done by violent programs when we don't censor > the decrease in free speech that results when we do censor

    (P2) ???

    (C) It is not inconsistent to support both freedom of speech and limiting violence done on TV programs

    Now, we want (P2) to say something like: If there is an ovveriding interest --> it is not inconsistent to support both freedom of speech and limiting violence done on TV programs

    This is because (P1) is an example of an overriding interest. if you combine answer choice (B) with P1, you are able to arrive at the conclusion. With answer choice (A), you cannot. There is the small jump you have to make that says that (P1) actually *is* an example of an overriding interest, and that's what makes this a PSA and not SA question.

    Wow revelations!
  • SamiSami Yearly + Live Member Sage ⭐ 7Sage Tutor
    10806 karma
    Your Welcome! :)

    @wilderness said:
    I just thought of a better way to think about this!
    Loved that you also found a better way to do this <3
  • Stevie CStevie C Alum Member
    645 karma
    Some additional thoughts

    A) I don't think it changes the argument much. "Evaluating legislation" almost implies considering the consequences of passing vs. the consequences of not passing. This doesn't tell us whether we should or shouldn't support the legislation.

    There's another problem with A, which is that it says "a basic freedom" whereas the stimulus says "freedom of speech"... forcing the additional assumption that freedom of speech constitutes a basic freedom (in many parts of the world, it doesn't)
  • wildernesswilderness Alum Member
    133 karma
    @"Stevie C"

    Understood. My problem was that "evaluating legislation" *is* descriptively accurate for what we're doing in the stimulus. In the stimulus, we certainly do consider the consequence of passing (the harm done to free speech when we censor) vs. the consequences of not passing (the overall damage done by violent TV programs). We consider the relative harms that result from both.

    Where we're missing a link, however, is in getting from the fact that there is a discrepancy between relative dangers to "it is not inconsistent to support both *despite* the discrepancy."

    I think that assuming that freedom of speech falls under basic freedoms is an assumption that may work in pseudo sufficient questions, as here - as opposed to SA questions - we're asked to consider not (1) A --> B, (2) A, (3) B but rather (1) A --> B, (2) A', (3) B or B'

  • Stevie CStevie C Alum Member
    645 karma
    @wilderness said:
    Understood. My problem was that "evaluating legislation" *is* descriptively accurate for what we're doing in the stimulus. In the stimulus, we certainly do consider the consequence of passing (the harm done to free speech when we censor) vs. the consequences of not passing (the overall damage done by violent TV programs). We consider the relative harms that result from both.

    Where we're missing a link, however, is in getting from the fact that there is a discrepancy between relative dangers to "it is not inconsistent to support both *despite* the discrepancy."

    I think that assuming that freedom of speech falls under basic freedoms is an assumption that may work in pseudo sufficient questions, as here - as opposed to SA questions - we're asked to consider not (1) A --> B, (2) A, (3) B but rather (1) A --> B, (2) A', (3) B or B'
    1) I'm not saying that the "basic freedom" wording immediately disqualifies (A), but it certainly works against the argument for A being the best answer choice -- especially since (B) matches the stimulus by saying "freedom of speech" explicitly. Although PSA questions do allow for a correct answer choice that has small assumptions baked in, the ideal answer is still one with no assumptions required. And that's what I strive to choose (if it's available)

    2) In terms of whether a choice is "descriptively accurate" -- I think this is how a lot of trap answer choices are set up. If it makes sense in light of the stimulus, and if it is consistent with the reasoning in the stimulus, then we're tempted to choose it even if it isn't really strengthening the argument. I still get caught in those traps, too, because they're hard to avoid
Sign In or Register to comment.