Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: A politician explains that free speech has limits, specifically when that speech is likely to hurt people or cause chaos.

Conclusion: The government is justified in criminalizing certain types of speech because they are likely to cause serious harm.

Reasoning: Examples such as shouting 'Fire!' as a joke, leaking military secrets, or making extortion threats show that speech is not protected when it leads directly to danger.

Analysis: To identify the conclusion here, look for the statement that the specific examples are meant to support. The politician lists several illegal acts—like shouting 'Fire!' or extortion—to illustrate a broader principle. The final sentence acts as the 'umbrella' for the entire argument, providing the moral and legal justification for those restrictions. The word 'since' in the final sentence is a major clue, as it introduces the premises that support the claim about justification.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

3.

In the statements above, the politician argues that

Correct Answer
A
A restates the politician’s main point: some speech can legitimately be prohibited because it is likely to lead directly to serious harm, matching the final justification.
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