QUESTION TEXT: The public square was an important tool of…
QUESTION TYPE: Necessary Assumption
CONCLUSION: We need to make sure internet users have as much freedom of expression as people used to have in public squares.
REASONING: Public squares were an important tool of democracy – citizens could discuss issues there. The internet lets people discuss issues.
ANALYSIS: This may already feel like a good argument. When that happens, that means that the argument is making an unstated assumption you already agree with and you are adding without noticing.
Here, the unstated assumption is that discussion requires free speech. In this case, I couldn’t prephrase the answer – but I noticed it when answer C pointed it out.
___________
- “Complete” freedom of expression is extreme. That means you can say anything: recommend murdering the king, advocate stealing from people in the square, etc.
You have to interpret LSAT answers literally. No society has ever had complete freedom of expression. This answer is insane, and negating it slightly doesn’t hurt the argument.
Negation: People in public squares could say anything they wanted, except the phrase “orange elephant”. Don’t ask why. - Like A, you have to interpret this answer literally. Is the argument hurt if one citizen has internet access that occasionally disconnects due to technical issues? If not, this isn’t the right answer.
Negation: Bob’s internet goes down for 10 seconds twice a month due to a technical problem with his router. Every other citizen has precisely equal internet access. - CORRECT. If this isn’t true, then there’s no need to protect free speech. Apparently the internet can still be an effective forum for discussion even without free expression. (Lacking free expression doesn’t mean there’s zero expression)
Negation: A public forum will still be an effective tool of democracy even without free expression. - It doesn’t matter whether the internet is always used to discuss important issues, as long as people sometimes use it to discuss issues.
Also, the negation of “more often” (50.1%) is “equally often” (50%) . That’s rarely impactful.
Negation: People’s time on the internet is equally split between discussion of important issues and cat videos. - It doesn’t matter if there are other tools of democracy, as long as the internet is important enough that it needs protection.
Negation: There are other public forums, but the internet is important enough that it is an essential forum.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Lyndsie says
I was hesitent to pick C because the argument never clarifies that the public square also had the ability to talk about issues freely, just that disparate citizens had access to it.
(I imagine guards standing nearby ready to spear someone for saything the wrong thing)
Since it makes a point to say disparate citizens had access, and the internet never addresses who has access, I chose B as the answer because if disparate citizens did not have access to the internet then it can’t serve the same purpose.
I understand that the answer would have had to specify ‘disparate citizens’ and not just say ‘all’.
But had it said “Disparate citizens have the same access to the internet as those with power” would that have been a correct answer?
TutorRosalie (LSATHacks) says
The argument doesn’t have to clarify that people in the public square have the ability to talk about issues freely. The conclusion states that “we should ensure that internet users have at least as much freedom of expression as did people speaking in the public square”; this implies that there was at least some degree of freedom at the public square, and the argument is that the Internet should at least have that much as well.
The argument does mention disparate citizens, but like you noted, it never uses the word ‘all’, so that knocks out Answer Choice B. But even if it had been phrased the way you mentioned, it would still not be the correct answer in this case. For questions that ask, “what is an assumption required by the argument”, you have to supply the answer choice that if untrue, breaks the argument. In Answer Choice C, if a public square WON’T lose effectiveness as a democracy tool if participants can’t discuss freely, then the argument’s conclusion won’t work: then we don’t need to ensure that the internet has as much freedom as the public square.
For your revised Answer B, if disparate citizens don’t have the same access as those with power, it won’t ruin the argument since it’s not necessary for everyone to have the same access.