QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Strengthen
CONCLUSION: We shouldn’t censor groups that argue it’s good to eat raw meat.
REASONING: The author claims that it isn’t a good idea to censor political groups for having opinions that could harm people.
ANALYSIS: The author tries an argument by analogy. But analogies can’t definitively prove a point. Even if it’s true that we shouldn’t censor political groups, food groups might be a special case. We might want to censor food groups even if we leave political groups alone.
We need a reason that shows that the reasoning from the political analogy applies to raw meat groups.
- We don’t know if many people think eating raw meat is a good idea.
- This doesn’t help. Maybe it’s in the best interests of society to avoid the dangers of raw meat.
- This tells us what raw food advocates should do. It doesn’t tell us what the government should do.
- CORRECT. If fear of danger is our only reason, then this principle tells us we have no good reason to censor raw foodists.
- The argument is talking about what the government should do. It’s not talking about what we should tell the government to do.
Need help with LR? → Sign up hereTry the LSAT Hacks Course
Graeme teaches how to break down arguments, quickly