LR Question 23 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Libel is defined as damaging the reputation of…
QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Justify
CONCLUSION: Libel laws can make it hard for public figures to have a good reputation.
REASONING: Strong libel laws make it unlikely anyone will say bad things about public figures.
ANALYSIS: This is almost like a paradox situation. When you’re presented with a confusing situation, you should ask: how could this be true?
- My first thought was that maybe people only find public figures trustworthy if there are some minor bad things said about those public figures.
- Or maybe people only find someone trustworthy in relation to others. We need some people to be badly attacked; this helps us trust the remaining people who haven’t been publicly attacked.
It turns out the right answer uses the second version. But the point of the “how could this be true?” exercise isn’t necessarily to identify the answer in advance (though that helps!). The exercise can also make your mind think actively about the relevant factors, and make you receptive to the right answer even if you hadn’t thought of it in advance.
___________
- The argument isn’t about what happens without libel law. It’s about what happens if we do have libel law!
We can’t learn much from the opposite extreme. I.e. Experience of deserts doesn’t tell us what life is like in the arctic. - The question wasn’t about bad reputations. It was about whether anyone could get a good reputation.
- This tells us about what should be libel. But the stimulus was about what would happen if there are libel laws.
- This is a trap. If you picked this, you might have thought: “Oh, all those proven negative statements will surely damage reputations”
But the conclusion isn’t about bad reputations. It’s about how nobody can form a good reputation. (Not every public figure is subject to attacks.) - CORRECT. This answer says:
No bad reputations ➞ no good reputations
The stimulus said that no one would attack public figures if there were strong libel laws. You must take LSAT answers literally. If they say no one, they mean 0% of people.
So there are no negative attacks. People presumably can’t get negative reputations.
And according to the principle in this answer, that means there are also no good reputations.
More Resources for Principle Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Principle questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers principle questions.
What makes it so problematic is the specific nature of the gap: C(hess) is a kind of G(ame), and banning C(hess) eliminates F(un). The argument is said to be justified by the principle that F(un) is impossible without G(ames). Sure, but to make this work, we must posit that C(hess) is the only G(ame). That is precisely what is exposed as a flaw in reasoning in so many other instances: presumption, without warrant, that since X is Y, X is the only Y. Since the prompt “best justifies” invites judgment, the answer looks incredibly suspicious. It’s the second-worst question of the decade imho)
That being said, your method of expertly eliminating the wrong answers one by one is definitely the way to go in this case – great explanations as usual.
There is an unstated assumption that the only way for a public figure to have a bad rep is for the public to say bad things about said figure. This is demonstrably false: an abysmal reputation can be acquired through actions. In a dictatorship, for example, public acts of brutality can destroy the leader’s reputation, simultaneously keeping people too scared to say anything remotely critical. That consideration decouples “saying bad things” from “bad reputation” and undermines the logic behind E, arguably making it as nonsensical as the rest of the answers. What a strange question…
Good point, I agree. I suppose the idea is that since the stimulus is about libel, we’re primarily meant to think about the effect of statements on reputation, but that’s never explicitly stated. And because the LSAT relies on dictionary definitions (where reputation isn’t limited to speech), that gap does become problematic/an unstated assumption.
E is definitely the best answer, but I agree it’s not a great one.