Logical reasoning PrepTest 151 · Section 4 · Question 3

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Main Point

Stimulus Summary:
Some speech isn't protected: shouting fire in public, revealing classified information, and extortion/criminal conspiracies, for example. These examples highlight speech likely to lead to harm, so it's justified to criminalize it.

Answer Anticipation:
First, note that the question stem is a little bit more expansive than the usual Main Point question, asking about what the Politician argues. While the correct answer may limit itself to the Main Point, there's also a chance it'll bring in a premise supporting that point.

Here, there are two key signs that criminalizing certain forms of speech is justified is the conclusion. The first is that it talks about what is "justified"—a word that is much more common in a conclusion than a premise. The second is that it's followed by "since," which indicates that what came before is a conclusion supported by the statement that follows.

So the Politician, using 3 examples, argues that since certain comments are likely to lead directly to serious harm, the government is justified in criminalizing them.

Answer Explanation:
This answer choice reflects the argument that the Politician builds to by starting with three examples. It more or less directly restates the last sentence, which forms the actual argument in the stimulus, and so this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
"Since" is one of the best words to see in a question that's asking about argument structure. It tells you not only that it's introducing a premise, but also that a conclusion will be featured in the sentence. It essentially guarantees that you have an argument in one sentence, and you can usually use it to contextualize the rest of the statements.

Incorrect. The principle underlying the Politician's argument is that criminalizing speech is justified if it is likely to lead to direct harm, not only if it does. We can tell this because the premise establishes that this speech is likely to lead to harm, and she treats that as sufficient to support a conclusion that the criminalization of the speech is justified.

Incorrect. The Politician highlights specific types of speech that are likely to lead to harm, not situations where restricting speech led to harm.

Incorrect. The Politician describes three types of speech that are likely to lead to harm, but that doesn't imply or establish that she believes all speech is capable of leading directly to serious harm.

Incorrect. The Politician does focus on one justification for restricting speech, but there's nothing in her argument suggesting that she believes this is the only justification for doing so.