Q20 - Government official: Clearly, censorship

[shariferguson]

Can someone point out the reasoning flaw in this argument. I'm not sure I get it. The conclusion makes no sense to me. And I know the flaw has something to do with that.

Please help. Thanks

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

The flaw in the argument is that the premise touches on one characteristic of censorship, then concludes that something without that characteristic cannot be called censorship.

Here's a simple analogous argument illustrate:

Premise: It's rude to burp in public.

Conclusion: Since Sally doesn't burp in public, she is not rude.

Notice the flaw in this argument -- burping in public is just one way of being rude, and we can't say Sally is not rude because she doesn't do it -- she could be rude for other reasons (maybe she yells at everyone).

Answer choice (D) shares the same flaw. It gives one characteristic that makes an action "heroic," then says another another without that characteristic is therefore "unheroic."

[ispawlak]

So is the pattern just a mistaken negation? I picked the correct answer, but I just want to make sure that I chose the answer for the right reasons.

[timmydoeslsat]

That is right.

Premise: Action ---> Censorship


Conclusion: ~Action ----> ~Censorship

And of course we are told one way of leading to censorship, so we cannot justifiably conclude that other actions do not lead to censorship.

[slimjimsquinn]

Premise: Action ---> Censorship


Conclusion: ~Action ----> ~Censorship

And of course we are told one way of leading to censorship, so we cannot justifiably conclude that other actions do not lead to censorship.

Hi, how is "public unwillingness to to provide funds for certain kinds..." the not-action?

Action (not allowed to communicate) ---> censorship
Non- action (public unwillingness to provide funds) --> censorship


I can't see how not being allowed to communicate is opposite of public unwillingness. It seems that, on the contrary, they are actions of the same vein. Will you explain this? I interpreted the stimulus as:

action ----> censorship
action of a similar kind --> not censorship

[timmydoeslsat]

I should have been more clear, thanks pointing that out.

We are told that:

____ or ____ ---> Censorship

We conclude that some kind of action is ~Censorship




We cannot conclude that. We have no idea of knowing what will constitute ~Censorship.

We know of two ways to get to censorship. A situation of not permitting or a situation of not allowed.

Does this mean that these are the only two ways to reach Censorship? No.

The argument brings in a point, a kind of action, an unwillingness, that is not a situation given of ~permitted or ~allowed.

But this does not give us justification to conclude that unwillingness IS NOT censorship. It could very well be censorship as are the previous two actions cited in evidence.

[taaron]

I was stuck between D and E. I wound up choosing D, but I'd like help diagramming E (especially the first premise, including "is determined by").

Thank you.

[WaltGrace1983]

While there seems to be one answer choice that is most clear, I think there is a lot of good stuff to work with on these answer choices.

(~Allowed or ~Permitted) → Censorship
⊢
~(~Allowed or ~Permitted) → ~Censorship

To me, public unwillingness makes it sound like the public is allowed and permitted. Thus we could also understand the conclusion in terms of (Allowed & Permitted) → ~Censorship, the exact negation of the original premise. Either way, even if one didn't quite get what the premise was doing because it is a little bit vague, we can still work with the question knowing that the conclusion is concluding ~Censorship from a premise concluding Censorship - this is classic LSAT.

(A) Unless I am mistaken, this actually looks like a valid argument. I am going to put this in conditional logic to explain why. Action = A, Cause Unnecessary Harm = CUH, J = Just

A & CUH → ~J

All actions that cause unnecessary harm to others are unjust.

Therefore, If it is (1) an action and (2) it causes unnecessary harm (A & CUH), it must be unjust (~J). I can work with this but I feel more comfortable with the contrapositive, knowing that the conclusion of this argument is concluding (~CUH).


J → (~A or ~CUH)

Here is the contrapositive.


J
So if a just action causes harm to others


We have to assume (J) because we are assuming that the action is in fact just. What do we know if the action is just? According to the premises it must either be ~A (not an action) or ~CUH (doesn't cause unnecessary harm). Well we know it is an action so it cannot be ~A. Therefore, it must be ~CUH. In other words, if an action is just then it must not cause unnecessary harm.


⊢ ~CUH

Perfect! This argument looks good. Thus, this argument isn't the right answer because it is both valid and NOT parallel to the original argument (in order to parallel to the original argument, we would have to assume something about ~J or ~(A & CUH).

(B) This is a different flaw. The argument is merely assuming that one doesn't use more than just polite forms of address when first meeting someone. This sounds more like a necessary assumption question.

(C) This is a bit of an equivocation fallacy. Having the same name doesn't mean anything about the origin.

(D) Correct answer. Even if you don't know much about the original argument's structure in regard to the premises, you can clearly see that there is a false negation of the conclusion.

R → H
~R
⊢
~H

(E) This is a very odd argument. I think it is just assuming that everyone is going to "behold."

Hope that helps.