Professor: It has been argued that freedom of thought is a preconditio

Question

Professor: It has been argued that freedom of thought is a precondition for intellectual progress, because freedom of thought allows thinkers to pursue their ideas, regardless of whom these ideas offend, in whatever direction they lead. However, it is clear that one must mine the full implications of interrelated ideas to make intellectual progress, and for this, thinkers need intellectual discipline. Therefore, this argument for freedom of thought fails.

The conclusion drawn by the professor follows logically if which one of the following is assumed?

(A) Thinkers who limit their line of thought to a particular orthodoxy are hindered in their intellectual progress.

(B) Thinkers can mine the full implications of interrelated ideas only in the context of a society that values intellectual progress.

(C) In societies that protect freedom of thought, thinkers invariably lack intellectual discipline.

(D) Freedom of thought engenders creativity, which aids the discovery of truth.

(E) Without intellectual discipline, thinkers can have no freedom of thought.

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

Tough one. The first trick here is to avoid falling asleep during the Professor’s argument. The second trick is to render out some of the fat like “regardless whom these ideas offend,” and “implications of interrelated ideas,” and focus on the if-then statements underneath all the blowhard bullshit. Basically, we’re given two if-then statements:

Premise One, which the Professor  does not  believe: If you have intellectual progress —> then you must have freedom of thought. (Contrapositive: If you don’t have freedom of thought —> then you can’t have intellectual progress.)

Premise Two, which the Professor  does  believe: If you have intellectual progress —> then you must have intellectual discipline. (Contrapositive: If you don’t have intellectual discipline —> then you can’t have intellectual progress.)

The Professor’s conclusion is that Premise One is false. The question asks us to find an answer that, when added to the given facts, will cause the Professor’s conclusion to “follow logically.”

“Follows logically” simply means “proven.” So we’re on the Professor’s side here, and we have to try to help him win his case. To win his case, we need to prove that Premise One is false. How do we get there, given the Professor’s existing evidence?

Well, the only real evidence the Professor has provided is, “If you have intellectual progress —> then you must have intellectual discipline.” So we need to bridge the gap between that and, “Therefore it is not true that if you have intellectual progress —> then you must have freedom of thought (which would be the opposite of Premise One).”

The answer here is going to be something very formulaic. Since the Professor only has one premise, and one conclusion, there’s really only one way to build the bridge. I can almost always predict the correct answer in a situation like this. My prediction is, “If you have intellectual discipline then you cannot have freedom of thought.”

The reason this would prove the argument is…

1) If it’s true that intellectual progress requires intellectual discipline, and
2) if it’s true that intellectual discipline requires the lack of freedom of thought, then
3) it cannot be true that intellectual progress requires freedom of thought, because that is impossible without 1) or 2) being false.

Time to look at the answers. I want either, “If you have intellectual discipline then you cannot have freedom of thought,” or the contrapositive of that statement, “If you have freedom of thought, then you cannot have intellectual discipline.”

A) Not what we’re looking for. We have a very specific prediction here, and this doesn’t match it. So let’s continue through the answer choices. If we don’t find what we’re looking for, then we’ll have to come back and reconsider.

B) Not what we're looking for.

C) Boom. Exactly what we were looking for.

D) Truth? WTF? This is irrelevant.

E) This would actually disprove the Professor’s argument, because it means that freedom of thought requires intellectual discipline. The Professor believes the two are incompatible.

Our answer is C.

Rishi2502 · Answer

Can anyone tell 
is E option correct?

petrichor · Answer

C?

For intellectual progress, a thinker needs -
Commonly argued : Freedom of thought -> a thinker can pursue ideas in any direction.
Author's view : Thinkers need intellectual discipline, Therefore, this argument fails.

So, Author assumes freedom of thought and intellectual discipline can't co-exist. C is my Answer.

gullyboy09 · Answer

Argument starts with FOT as a pre-condition for intellectual progress but it concludes it's not a case as ID is necessary for IP not FOT. But FOT and ID can still co-exist together, it's just FOT is no more must for intellectual progress. With C, it's more of a sufficient assumption then necessary one. Can you help me if I am thinking correctly?

KarishmaB GMATNinja Bunuel

KarishmaB   GMATNinja   Bunuel

guddo · Answer

The professor presents an argument that freedom of thought is claimed to be necessary for intellectual progress because it allows thinkers to explore ideas freely. The professor counters that intellectual progress requires mining the full implications of interrelated ideas, which in turn requires intellectual discipline. The professor concludes that the original argument for freedom of thought therefore fails.

(A) Discusses thinkers limited by orthodoxy, but the professor’s point is about the need for discipline, not about orthodoxy. This does not connect freedom of thought to a lack of discipline.

(B) Focuses on societal values, not on the relationship between freedom of thought and intellectual discipline. It does not support the professor’s conclusion.

(C) States that in societies with freedom of thought, thinkers invariably lack intellectual discipline. If true, freedom of thought would prevent the very discipline needed for progress, so the original argument would indeed fail. This directly bridges the professor’s premise and conclusion.

(D) Supports freedom of thought by linking it to creativity and truth discovery, which contradicts the professor’s conclusion.

(E) Suggests intellectual discipline is necessary for freedom of thought, which would weaken the professor’s point that discipline is needed instead of freedom.

So, option (C) is the necessary assumption. If freedom of thought guarantees a lack of intellectual discipline, then the original argument fails because discipline is required for progress.

guddo · Answer

For the conclusion to follow, FOT must prevent ID. Option C says exactly that: under FOT, thinkers lack ID. Without this assumption, FOT and ID could coexist, and the argument for FOT wouldn’t fail. So C is necessary.

Professor: It has been argued that freedom of thought is a preconditio

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

Professor: It has been argued that freedom of thought is a preconditio

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