LSAT 108 | Section 2 | Logical Reasoning: Q12

LR Question 12 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Undoubtedly, one’s freedom is always worth …

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Your freedom is always worth the risk of losing your life.

REASONING: A person locked forever in a bare cement room with no hope of escape isn’t really living and has nothing to lose.

ANALYSIS: The example is probably the most extreme deprivation of freedom imaginable. Solitary confinement, no hope of escape, bare cement room, effectively no life at all.

Very few people live like this.

Even if we’d agree that this person has nothing to lose by risking their life for freedom, it doesn’t follow that: Freedom is always worth risking your life.

The conclusion is crazy! It would mean that if your mom set a curfew for 9PM, and your freedom meant staying out till 1AM, it would always be worth risking your life for that freedom.

Or imagine you’re on house arrest for 2 years. You’re still in the comfort of your home and can have family and friends visit. Is it worth risking your life for freedom, or might it be better to serve the 2 years and then get your freedom?

One extreme case doesn’t justify an “always.”

___________

1. The argument does say freedom is always worth risking one’s life, but it doesn’t necessarily assume nothing is more valuable than freedom. Something else could also be equally valuable and also worth risking your life for.
2. Physical rebellion is never discussed.
3. CORRECT. This is exactly what happens. They use a single extreme case (solitary confinement) to make a universal conclusion.
4. The argument concerns one’s own freedom, not the freedom of others.
5. Whether people have the courage to take risks is irrelevant. The conclusion is about whether freedom is worth the risk, not whether people are willing to take it.