Editorial: A recently passed law limits freedom of speech in order to

Question

Editorial: A recently passed law limits freedom of speech in order to silence dissenters. It has been said that those who are ignorant of history will repeat its patterns. If this is true, then those responsible for passing the law must be ignorant of a great deal of history. Historically, silencing dissenters has tended to promote undemocratic policies and the establishment of authoritarian regimes.

The editorialist’s reasoning is flawed in that it fails to take into account that

(A) the law may have other purposes in addition to silencing dissenters

(B) certain freedoms might sometimes need to be limited in order to ensure the protection of certain other freedoms

(C) some historical accounts report that legal restrictions on freedom of speech have occasionally undermined the establishment of authoritarian regimes

(D) many good laws have been passed by people who are largely ignorant of history

(E) even those who are not ignorant of history may repeat its patterns

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

It’s buried beneath a bunch of bullshit, but there’s one giant flaw here, a flaw I always yell about on the very first night of class. It’s the sufficient vs. necessary flaw, the “ if you’re eaten by a shark you’ll die, so if John is dead he must have gotten eaten by a shark ” flaw. This is the most important, and most common, flaw that gets tested on the LSAT. You should be looking out for it at all times. Your response should be immediate, angry, and loud: “ The arrow only goes one way, jackass, ” and/or “ just because event A causes event B doesn’t mean event A is the only thing that causes event B, ” and/or “ there are lots of other ways to die besides shark attack. ” If you said any of those things, you were on the right track.

We’re asked to identify the flaw, and we’ve already identified a huge one. I suppose there might be an  additional  flaw that the question is looking for (this is Question #23, after all, and later questions in the section do tend to be hard) but before overthinking this one, let’s just scan the answer choices looking for the classic sufficient vs. necessary flaw. If it’s there, it’s our answer.

A) Nah, this isn’t what we’re looking for. I don’t see how the purposes of the law are even at issue here. The issue is whether or not the folks who passed the law are ignorant of history or not.

B) Again, not what we’re looking for. Is “freedom” really at issue?

C) Not what we’re looking for. And I don’t even know what it means, or care what it means, at least not until we’ve made it through all five answer choices looking for the Big Kahuna of all LSAT logical reasoning flaws.

D) The point isn’t whether the law is good or bad. The point is whether the people who passed this law are ignorant of history or not. We’re still looking.

E) And there we have it. This question was either super-easy, if you knew what you were looking for, or nearly impossible, if you didn’t know what you were looking for. This answer choice points out that there might be other ways to die besides shark attack: There might be  other  ways to repeat history besides being ignorant of history, therefore you can’t claim that anybody who repeats history is ignorant of history. This is our answer. Even with a gun to my head, I’d be confident that this was our answer, because I’ve seen this flaw so many times before. Keep practicing! The test does get easier.

Our answer is E.

Helium · Answer

Can someone explain in detail the OA?

Posted from my mobile device

AdityaHongunti · Answer

The author subtly tries to maintain a causal relationship saying that those who ignore history will be subjected to consequence similar to the past. 
Flaw - What if it's a coincidence or just natural without any sound relationship. Option E states the same. Saying it might as well happen to people who generally ignore the history.

The problem is extremely subtle. I wouldnt worry about such arguments in GMAT

dave13 · Answer

Editorial: A recently passed law limits freedom of speech in order to silence dissenters. It has been said that those who are ignorant of history will repeat its patterns. If this is true, then those responsible for passing the law must be ignorant of a great deal of history. Historically, silencing dissenters has tended to promote undemocratic policies and the establishment of authoritarian regimes.

The editorialist’s reasoning is flawed in that it fails to take into account that

(A) the law may have other purposes in addition to silencing dissenters

(B) certain freedoms might sometimes need to be limited in order to ensure the protection of certain other freedoms

(C) some historical accounts report that legal restrictions on freedom of speech have occasionally undermined the establishment of authoritarian regimes

(D) many good laws have been passed by people who are largely ignorant of history

(E) even those who are not ignorant of history may repeat its patterns

Show Answer

Official Answer

E

in D notice this option is a bit "skewed" we are talking mainly of people- who are ignorant of history will repeat its patterns. But D option talks about good laws, but we need to figure connection bettwen " patterns and ignorance" wheras the main idea of D option revolves around good laws and ignorance of history. (D) many good laws have been passed by people who are largely ignorant of history (E) even those who are not ignorant of history may repeat its patterns Option E corretly undermines argument by mentioning that even those who are not ignorant of history repeat mistakes. notice the main idea of option E is about ignorance of history and repeat of patterns, which is relevant to argument

bidskamikaze · Answer

One thing that comes to our mind when we read this argument is that those responsible for passing the law may not be ignorant of a great deal of history.
Maybe they know history, yet they decide to pass the law!

Option  (E) even those who are not ignorant of history may repeat its patterns  says the same.

Sketchitesh · Answer

It is a flaw type of question. 
It can clearly pointed out that the conclusion is “ If this is true, then those responsible for passing the law must be ignorant of a great deal of history” and it is based on: 
“ It has been said that those who are ignorant of history will repeat its patterns” A->B

Now in this A -> B, we need to find if C -> B or B -> A. 
Option E : even those who are not ignorant of history may repeat its patterns. 
States that C->B. Thats our answer because If this the case our conclusion fails.

kumarvibhuti630 · Answer

Conclusion: those responsible for passing the law must be ignorant of a great deal of history
Premise: A recently passed law limits freedom of speech in order to silence dissenters. It has been said that those who are ignorant of history will repeat its patterns. Historically, silencing dissenters has tended to promote undemocratic policies and the establishment of authoritarian regimes.
We have to identify the flaw in concluding from the premises.

(A) Explanation: Irrelevant as per the argument

(B) Explanation: irrelevant, it is not correlating why they are ignorant of history

(C) Explanation: Adding new info into premise, apart from the context given. It is weakening the conclusion but It is definitely not the option to select to. It can be set aside if you are not sure.

(D) Explanation: Irrelevant, we are not concerned about other laws, we are concerned on the silence of dissenters.

(E) Explanation: It completely attacks the conclusion and points out that the premise holds true, but there are other reason for which conclusion might not hold true.

Editorial: A recently passed law limits freedom of speech in order to

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Editorial: A recently passed law limits freedom of speech in order to

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards