LSAT 112 | Section 3 | Logical Reasoning: Q20

LR Question 20 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Critic: Although some people claim it is inconsistent…

QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Strengthen

CONCLUSION: It isn’t inconsistent to support freedom of speech yet also support limiting TV violence.

REASONING: TV violence will cause more harm than the harm caused by limiting free speech in this case.

ANALYSIS: The principle must not only support the idea that we should restrict TV violence but it should also support the idea that we generally don’t limit free speech. The critic is only arguing for a very small restriction on free speech.

___________

1. This shows we should consider the consequences, but it doesn’t allow us to support limiting a basic right.
2. CORRECT. We can support free speech while recognizing that it sometimes must be limited.
3. We have no idea if banning TV violence will make people happy. Maybe most people like TV violence.
4. This is too extreme. The critic is arguing for a very limited restriction on free speech. He does not say that free speech should always be limited anytime it causes the slightest harm.
5. This doesn’t tell us if we should tolerate restrictions in these circumstances.