LSAT 113 – Section 3 – Question 07

LSAT 113 - Section 3 - Question 07

June 2002

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Request new explanation

Target time: 1:09

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT113 S3 Q07
+LR
+Exp
Most strongly supported +MSS
Causal Reasoning +CausR
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
1%
156
B
1%
159
C
11%
160
D
84%
167
E
2%
159
131
144
157
 +Medium 146.265 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Social critic: The whole debate over the legal right of rock singers to utter violent lyrics misses the point. Legally, there is very little that may not be said. But not everything that may legally be said, ought to be said. Granted, violence predates the rise in popularity of such music. Yet words also have the power to change the way we see and the way we act.

Summary

The debate over the legal right of rock singers to say violent lyrics misses the point. There is legally very little that cannot be said. Not everything that can legally be said ought to be said. Violence came before the popularity of violent lyrics in music. Words can change how we see and how we act.

Strongly Supported Conclusions

There could be a relationship between violent song lyrics and violent views and actions.

A
If rock music that contains violent lyrics is morally wrong, then it should be illegal.

This is anti-supported because the author states that very little speech is illegal and that there is a difference between things that are legal and things that ought to be said. The author doesn’t advocate making any speech illegal.

B
The law should be changed so that the government is mandated to censor rock music that contains violent lyrics.

This is unsupported because the author does not advocate for a change in laws, and the author draws a distinction between what can be said legally versus what ought to be said.

C
Violent rock song lyrics do not incite violence, they merely reflect the violence in society.

This is anti-supported because the author states that words can influence how we act, meaning the author thinks it is possible for violent lyrics to lead to some violent acts.

D
If rock musicians voluntarily censor their violent lyrics, this may help to reduce violence in society.

This is strongly supported because the author states that words, exemplified by violent lyrics, can affect how people act. This means that choosing not to speak violent lyrics could reduce violent acts.

E
Stopping the production of rock music that contains violent lyrics would eliminate much of the violence within society.

This is unsupported because the author concedes that violent acts predate violent lyrics. While the author thinks there is a connection between words and actions, it is unclear that stopping these lyrics would eliminate “much” violence.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 113 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply