LSAT 119 – Section 3 – Question 23

LSAT 119 - Section 3 - Question 23

June 2005

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Target time: 1:28

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question QuickView	Type	Tags	Answer Choices	Curve	Question Difficulty	Psg/Game/S Difficulty	Explanation
PT119 S3 Q23	+LR	Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw Conditional Reasoning +CondR	A 10% 160 B 13% 159 C 16% 161 D 3% 157 E 59% 167	150 160 171	+Hardest	145.195 +SubsectionEasier

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.

Summarize Argument

The author concludes that if the saying “those who are ignorant of history will repeat its patterns,” is true, then the people who passed a law intending to silence dissenters must be ignorant of much of history’s patterns. This is because history shows that silencing dissenters leads to authoritarianism.

Identify and Describe Flaw

The author confuses sufficient and necessary conditions. The saying is that if one is ignorant of history, then one will repeat its patterns. But this doesn’t imply that if one repeats history’s patterns, one must be ignorant of history. It’s possible that the people who passed the law are repeating history’s patterns even if they’re not ignorant. In fact, maybe they want to follow the patterns of history and are fully aware of what is likely to happen.

the law may have other purposes in addition to silencing dissenters

The author never assumes that the law doesn’t have other purposes. If there are other purposes, that doesn’t undermine the author’s reasoning. What matters is whether the lawmakers are aware of the historical patterns associated with silencing dissenters.

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

The author never takes a position on whether silencing dissenters is necessary or unnecessary. The issue is whether the lawmakers are aware of the historical patterns associated with silencing dissenters.

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

The author acknowledges that silencing dissenters “has tended” to promote authoriatarian regimes. That allows for some cases where silencing dissenters has weakened authoritarian regimes.

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

Whether the laws are “good” is irrelevant. The issue whether the lawmakers are aware of the historical patterns associated with silencing dissenters.

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

If people who are not ignorant of history can repeat its patterns, then the mere fact that the lawmakers are repeating its patterns does not establish that they are ignorant of those patterns. They might be aware of those patterns.

The question stem reads: The editorialist's reasoning is flawed in that it fails to take into account that… This is a Flaw question.

The editorialist states that a recently passed law limits freedom of speech to silence dissenters. He then describes the claim that those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. In this claim, "doomed" is a necessary condition indicator. So we can rewrite the claim into lawgic: ignorant of history -> repeat history. The editorialist concludes that "If this (ignorant of history -> repeat history) is true, then those responsible for passing the laws must be ignorant of a great deal of history." In lawgic, the conclusion reads:

(ignorant of history -> repeat history) -> law passers ignorant of history

The editorialists note that in the past, silencing dissenters have tended to promote undemocratic policies and the establishment of authoritarian regimes. Let's outline the argument::

P1: A Law has been passed to silence dissenters

P2: Silencing dissenters has occurred in the past.

______________________________________________

C: (ignorant of history -> repeat history) -> law passers ignorant of history

Looking at the premises, we can infer that history has been repeated. Dissenters have been silenced in the past, and lawmakers today are trying to silence dissenters now.

P1: A Law has been passed to silence dissenters

P2: Silencing dissenters has occurred in the past.

P3: history has been repeated

______________________________________________

C: (ignorant of history -> repeat history) -> law passers ignorant of history

Finally, we can kick up the sufficient condition of the conclusion:

P1: A Law has been passed to silence dissenters

P2: Silencing dissenters has occurred in the past.

P3: history has been repeated

P4: ignorant of history -> repeat history

______________________________________________

C: law passers are ignorant of history

Remember, satisfying the necessary condition yields no information about the sufficient condition. The editorialist has used the fact that history has been repeated (P4's necessary condition) to conclude that the lawmakers are ignorant of history (P4's sufficient condition). The editorialist is affirming the consequent, a classic logical fallacy. Now that we see the error in the editorialist's reasoning let's move the answer choices.

Answer Choice (A) is irrelevant to the argument. The purpose of the law does not matter. What matters to the argument is that history is repeating itself.

Answer Choice (B) is irrelevant. If you picked (B), you likely got caught up in irrelevant parts of the stimulus, i.e., "limits freedom of speech" and "tended to promote undemocratic policies and the establishment of authoritarian regimes." But the editorialist's argument is not about what freedoms need or need not be protected.

Answer Choice (C) is actually taken into account by the argument. The stimulus says, "silencing dissenters has tended to promote… the establishment of authoritarian regimes." The fact that you can find some instances of undermining regimes is compatible with the editorialist's claim. Furthermore, what matters is that a law "silencing dissenters" is a repeat of history. Whether or not the law ends up establishing or undermining an authoritarian regime is arbitrary.

Answer Choice (D) is also irrelevant. Whether the law is good or bad has no effect on the argument.

Correct Answer Choice (E) is an illustration of our prephase. Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it, but it is entirely possible to be aware of history and still repeat it. Maybe these lawmakers intend to establish an authoritarian regime. Maybe not. In either case, (E) is good to go.

LSAT 119 – Section 3 – Question 23

LSAT 119 - Section 3 - Question 23

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 119 Explanations

Section 1 - Reading Comprehension

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Logical Reasoning

Leave a Reply Cancel