Hello, everyone. I am not surprised to see that another LSAT question is causing so much grief. If you are preparing for the GMAT™, the passage and question are different enough from what you can expect to see that practicing dedicated CR questions would probably prove much more useful. With that said, I do enjoy LSAT questions, and I would like to take the opportunity to explain why I believe (D) in particular fails as an answer to the question. Keep in mind, our goal is to NOT weaken the conclusion. In order to achieve that aim, we need not necessarily strengthen the conclusion, but we must
stick to the exact argument presented, or any answer can start looking reasonable.
Bunuel wrote:
The function of government is to satisfy the genuine wants of the masses, and government cannot satisfy those wants unless it is informed about what those wants are. Freedom of speech ensures that such information will reach the ears of government officials. Therefore, freedom of speech is indispensable for a healthy state.
Which one of the following, if true, would NOT undermine the conclusion of the argument?
The passage opens with a claim, defining the
function of government as the ability
to satisfy the genuine wants of the masses; we then get a conditional in the latter half of the sentence: unless the government is informed about
those wants, it
cannot satisfy them.
The second line introduces
freedom of speech as the vehicle between the wants of the masses and
the ears of government officials.
The third line is the conclusion of the argument. Note that
freedom of speech is considered
indispensable for a healthy state. We will return to this notion later.
What do the answer choices have in store for us?
Bunuel wrote:
(A) People most often do not know what they genuinely want.
The linear reasoning behind this one is that if people cannot tell
what they genuinely want, then the freedom of speech that
ensures that such wants will fall upon the ears of the government may not serve its purpose after all. That would certainly weaken the argument that freedom of speech is indispensable for a healthy state. This is a
red light answer, the opposite of what we want.
Bunuel wrote:
(B) Freedom of speech tends ultimately to undermine social order, and social order is a prerequisite for satisfying the wants of the masses.
Like (A), this option gives us reason to doubt the pure merits of freedom of speech; if it undermines social order, and such order is necessary for the government to satisfy the wants of the masses, then the link in the chain is broken. Apparently, the state might not end up so healthy.
Red light.
Bunuel wrote:
(C) The proper function of government is not to satisfy wants, but to provide equality of opportunity.
Unless you have practiced a lot of CR (or logical reasoning, in LSAT terms), this answer is likely to slide under the radar. But remember, we are looking for something that
would NOT undermine the conclusion of the argument, and this new information takes a different turn altogether. That is, it does not pertain to freedom of speech at all, so we cannot pin down what effect it would have on the conclusion. In short, this answer choice seems to attack the passage as a whole, not the conclusion itself. This is just what we want.
Green light.
Bunuel wrote:
(D) Freedom of speech is not sufficient for satisfying the wants of the masses: social order is necessary as well.
The conclusion tells us that freedom of speech is, once again,
indispensable for a healthy state; this answer choice tells us that freedom of speech is
not sufficient on its own
for satisfying the wants of the masses. A complementary role for freedom of speech goes against the linear logic of the passage: genuine wants of the people → freedom of speech → optimal governmental action. If we have a reason to doubt the middle link, just as we saw in (B), we cannot get behind such an answer choice. We need not read into the answer any further.
Red light.
Bunuel wrote:
(E) Rulers already know what the people want.
This sort of out-of-left-field consideration may give you pause, but what separates it from (C) is that this answer choice operates within the confines of the passage.
Rulers are heads of state, and if this new information were true, then freedom of speech would seem much less integral to the process of the voice of the masses being heard. To reiterate, whereas (C) tosses out the base of the argument altogether by redefining
the proper function of government, thereby deviating from the passage and conclusion, this choice merely gives us a different reason to doubt the power of the middle link in freedom of speech. In short, this is not what we want either.
Red light.
I know it may seem confusing, but your goal with these types of questions is to follow the linear logic of the passage. Start to bring in associative thoughts or adopt what I call one-step-removed reasoning, and you will pursue dead ends almost every time you see a harder question.
I would be happy to discuss any issues or concerns further. Good luck with your studies.
- Andrew
_________________
I am no longer contributing to GMAT Club. Please request an active Expert or a peer review if you have questions.