Principle JustifyDiff: Hardest

Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: If the laws against saying bad things are too tough, everyone will stay silent to avoid being sued. This actually hurts famous people because if no one is allowed to criticize them, their 'good' reputation doesn't actually mean anything.

Conclusion: Strict libel laws can ironically prevent public figures from ever establishing a truly good reputation.

Reasoning: Strong libel laws discourage people from saying anything negative about public figures due to the threat of litigation.

Analysis: The logic here relies on a specific definition of what makes a reputation 'good.' The author implies that a reputation is only valuable if it has survived the possibility of being tarnished. If the law creates a 'forced' politeness, we can't tell the difference between a saint and a scoundrel. To justify this, we need a principle stating that a good reputation requires the existence of an environment where negative information could have been shared but wasn't.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

23.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning in the argument?

Correct Answer
E
If public figures can have good reputations only if some other public figures have bad reputations, then once strong libel laws lead to no negative statements (and thus no bad reputations), it follows that it’s impossible for public figures to have good reputations—exactly the author’s conclusion.
Upgrade Your Prep

Ready to go beyond free explanations?

LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.

Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal
Explore Perfection Plus for full LSAT prep