A common misconception on the LSAT is that “principle questions” are a thing. In fact, the word “principle” appears in multiple question types which you should treat very differently. The most important thing to look for when you see the word “principle” is whether the principle points up or down. Some questions (PSAa or Rule Application questions) give us a principle in the stimulus and ask us to apply it down to the answer choices. These are akin to Most Strongly Supported questions, where we must be cautious of overstrong language and stick only to inferences supported by the stimulus.

This question (a PSAr or Find The Rule question) does the opposite: it presents a bunch of principles in the answer choices and asks us to apply them up to the stimulus in an effort to justify the argument. These are akin to Strengthen questions, where overstrong language is completely fine and we’re hoping to bridge any gaps in the argument we can find.

PSAr questions tend to follow routine patterns, and our approach can therefore be similarly routine. First, it’s critical to identify the argument’s conclusion and the premise(s) that seek to support it. In a shockingly high proportion of PSAr questions, the correct answer will take the form: Premise → Conclusion.

Like in normal Strengthen questions, though, it’s also important to note any common flaws you see, or (especially) subtle jumps from one concept to another (e.g. from talking about athletes to talking about professional athletes). Correct answers that address weaknesses like these are common as well.

The primary difference-maker between people who answer quickly and correctly and people who either get it wrong or take a long time is familiarity with the Value Judgment tag, otherwise known as the is-ought gap. You can’t jump from descriptive premises about how things are to normative conclusions about how things ought to be.

For real, the best way to approach this question (and it’s achievable with practice!) is to read the stimulus, think “ah we need a premise bridging the is-ought gap,” then spend a few moments evaluating (A), (D), and (E) on how well they take us from the specific “is” premise to the specific “ought” conclusion:

Descriptive Premise: Making countries richer makes them more free.
Normative Conclusion: Adopting policies that prevent other countries from getting richer is bad.

Recognizing the is-ought gap and following the Premise → Conclusion structure for PSAr questions yields the following anticipation:

Any policy that stifles freedom in another country is bad.