LSAT 46 - Section 3 - Question 23

The question stem reads: The editorialist's reasoning is flawed in that it fails to take into account that… This is a Flaw question.

The editorialist states that a recently passed law limits freedom of speech to silence dissenters. He then describes the claim that those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. In this claim, "doomed" is a necessary condition indicator. So we can rewrite the claim into lawgic: ignorant of history -> repeat history. The editorialist concludes that "If this (ignorant of history -> repeat history) is true, then those responsible for passing the laws must be ignorant of a great deal of history." In lawgic, the conclusion reads:

(ignorant of history -> repeat history) -> law passers ignorant of history

The editorialists note that in the past, silencing dissenters have tended to promote undemocratic policies and the establishment of authoritarian regimes. Let's outline the argument::

P1: A Law has been passed to silence dissenters

P2: Silencing dissenters has occurred in the past.

______________________________________________

C: (ignorant of history -> repeat history) -> law passers ignorant of history

Looking at the premises, we can infer that history has been repeated. Dissenters have been silenced in the past, and lawmakers today are trying to silence dissenters now.

P1: A Law has been passed to silence dissenters

P2: Silencing dissenters has occurred in the past.

P3: history has been repeated

______________________________________________

C: (ignorant of history -> repeat history) -> law passers ignorant of history

Finally, we can kick up the sufficient condition of the conclusion:

P1: A Law has been passed to silence dissenters

P2: Silencing dissenters has occurred in the past.

P3: history has been repeated

P4: ignorant of history -> repeat history

______________________________________________

C: law passers are ignorant of history

Remember, satisfying the necessary condition yields no information about the sufficient condition. The editorialist has used the fact that history has been repeated (P4's necessary condition) to conclude that the lawmakers are ignorant of history (P4's sufficient condition). The editorialist is affirming the consequent, a classic logical fallacy. Now that we see the error in the editorialist's reasoning let's move the answer choices.

Answer Choice (A) is irrelevant to the argument. The purpose of the law does not matter. What matters to the argument is that history is repeating itself.

Answer Choice (B) is irrelevant. If you picked (B), you likely got caught up in irrelevant parts of the stimulus, i.e., "limits freedom of speech" and "tended to promote undemocratic policies and the establishment of authoritarian regimes." But the editorialist's argument is not about what freedoms need or need not be protected.

Answer Choice (C) is actually taken into account by the argument. The stimulus says, "silencing dissenters has tended to promote… the establishment of authoritarian regimes." The fact that you can find some instances of undermining regimes is compatible with the editorialist's claim. Furthermore, what matters is that a law "silencing dissenters" is a repeat of history. Whether or not the law ends up establishing or undermining an authoritarian regime is arbitrary.

Answer Choice (D) is also irrelevant. Whether the law is good or bad has no effect on the argument.

Correct Answer Choice (E) is an illustration of our prephase. Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it, but it is entirely possible to be aware of history and still repeat it. Maybe these lawmakers intend to establish an authoritarian regime. Maybe not. In either case, (E) is good to go.