QUESTION TEXT: Politician: Democracy requires that there be no…
QUESTION TYPE: Role in Argument
CONCLUSION: Having the government monitor communications would be a blow to democracy.
REASONING: Democracies needs their citizens to be able to freely share ideas. And therefore citizens need to be able to have private conversations which the government doesn’t watch.
ANALYSIS: This question asks about the first sentence. That’s a general principle the argument uses to support the next sentence, which is used to support the conclusion.
- Democracy requires….–> general principle, unsupported
- Therefore the right….–> subsidiary conclusion, supported by principle
- For a government…..thus….–> conclusion, supported by subsidiary conclusion
Note that when an argument gives a general principle, it is unsupported (and on the LSAT, usually doesn’t need any). If I say “puppies are cute, so we should get one”, my statement that puppies are cute has no external support. I’m simply assuming you accept it as true.
- This is close, but the principle is also used to support the subsidiary conclusion.
- CORRECT. This matches. See the analysis above. The principle supports a subsidiary conclusion which in turn supports the conclusion.
- There’s no support. Support would be some other sentence that explained why democracy requires no restrictions.
- No, the final sentence is the conclusion. The word “thus” indicates this.
- Same as D. The word “thus” in the final sentence indicates that that sentence is the conclusion.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions