Logical reasoning PrepTest 130 · Section 1 · Question 6

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Free speech doesn't allow someone to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater, so a government doesn't violate free market rules by limiting withdrawals during a financial crisis.

Answer Anticipation:
The stimulus uses one situation to justify drawing a similar conclusion in a similar situation. This type of argument—using an analogy—is one of the most common methods of reasoning in this question type!

Answer Explanation:
First, this is the only answer that mentions analogies or comparisons, so there's a good chance it's correct just based on that. Digging into the details, the argument does try to show that a set of principles (free-market principles) are limited in a crisis by using an analogy to a similar principle (free speech) limited in a similar way (preventing harm in a certain situation).

Key Takeaway:
Arguments by analogy are very common on the LSAT, especially in Methods of Reasoning questions. Logic based on comparisons—which analogies fall under—is one of the primary things the LSAT tests, so get familiar with these concepts!

Incorrect. The argument is about justifying a certain behavior, not fitting a hypothesis to observed facts.

Incorrect. There are no experimental results noted in the stimulus, so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. First, there's no explanation provided—rather, there's a judgment about something being justified Second, the stimulus says that a given conclusion is justified in two different scenarios, not that it fails to justify one of them.

Incorrect. The conclusion about limitations on withdrawals in a crisis isn't a particular case—it's a class of cases, which makes it a generalization. Additionally, there are no empirical generalizations, just a similar scenario that establishes a principle the argument then applies.