Q1 - A government ought to

[sumukh09]

Sufficient assumption questions are by no means my strength so I think it would do me - and hopefully some others - some good if I go through my thought process with this question. That being said, please take my explanation with a grain of salt!

Pretty simple argument we're given here in the stimulus. The core is as follows:

free speech is an activity that is conducive to a healthy nation --> free speech is in the best interest of the people ---> government ought to protect and encourage free speech

We're asked to find an assumption that completely fills in the gap left by the stimulus. If I'm not mistaken, for questions with an intermediate conclusion we can have the gap between either the intermediate conclusion and the final conclusion OR the first premise and the intermediate conclusion.

Answer choices:

A) is our credited response: it provides the link between the intermediate conclusion and the main conclusion. "An activity" encompasses free speech and the direction of the logic is the same as in the stimulus and so we have our sufficient assumption

B) is incorrect because it is a more general version of the conclusion and so provides no missing link

C) helps a government to govern? out of scope

D) is backwards

E) is tempting and probably the trap answer for this Q. But who's to say universal human rights includes free speech?

[rinagoldfield]

Brilliant work, sumukh09! And I like your style_ writing explanations for questions you find challenging is a GREAT way to study for the LSAT. Keep it up.

Just a couple of notes:

You always want to get all the way to the conclusion on a sufficient assumption question, even when the argument core contains an intermediate conclusion. A link between the first premise and the intermediate conclusion only suffices if the link between the intermediate conclusion and the final conclusion is sound.

In terms of the answer choices...

(B) I agree that this answer choice provides no link. However, I want to add that "basic, inalienable rights" makes this answer choice out of scope. Yes, the Declaration of Independence talks about unalienable rights, and the Bill of Rights talks about free speech. But US founding documents don’t constitute the last word on rights. "Basic inalienable rights" and "free speech" are different concepts.

(C) is out of scope. Helping the government govern?

(D) is also out of scope. The argument talks about the interests of the people, not the interests of the government.

(E) is wrong for the same reason as (B). "Free speech" is distinct from "universal human rights."

[hakopis]

So, if I were to put in sentential logic form, would it look like this:

Premise: HN --> FS

Intermediary: FS --> BI

Missing Ass: G --> BI

Conclusion: G --> FS

[GaelM793]

How can we be sure that what follows "thus" isn't the conclusion?

[ohthatpatrick]

A cheeky way of surmising that it's only a subsidiary conclusion is that it's lowercase.
I don't think it's impossible for a main conclusion to have a lowercase "thus, therefore, hence, so", but I don't think I've ever seen them do that.

The more structural reason is this:

Claim 1, because [claim2] and thus [claim 3]

We can tell that Claim 1 is the Main Conclusion because it is being supported by the two ideas following the comma. The word "because / after all / for / since" all introduce support. The word "and" joins together two ideas so that they can work together.

So collectively we see that claim 2 and claim 3 are working together (and) to support claim 1 (because).

If the argument were merely
Claim 1, because [claim 2] and [claim 3]
then claims 2 and 3 would both be premises.

But since it says "claim 2 and thus claim 3", we can call claim 3 a subsidiary conclusion.

That's the formal answer. The conversational answer is to start from the highest idea in the hierarchy and see how the other ideas support that.

MAIN CONC: govt's should protect and encourage free speech
(why?)
SUBSID CONC: because free speech is in the best interest of a nation's people
(why?)
PREMISE: because free speech is an activity that is conducive to a healthy nation