Q6 - When a nation is on

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Analyze the Argument Structure (Procedure)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: It's not a violation of free market principles for a government to prevent massive withdrawals from banks during the brink of a financial crisis.
Evidence: It's not a violation of free speech to forbid someone from shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater. In both situations, we abridge freedom in order to prevent a worse harm.

Answer Anticipation:
When they ask us to describe how the author argued or what technique she used, the most common answers are these: analogy, counterexample, implications of logic, alternative interpretation, ruled out competing alternatives, defined a term, made a distinction. This is definitely an analogy, since the author uses evidence about yelling "fire" in a movie theater to make a point about governmental economic actions.

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) Sure, I guess! There is an analogy, and it's meant to illustrate the limits on free speech and free markets. The government can forbid certain behaviors if allowing them would cause much harm. Free market principles are limited in a specific way (prevent the harm that results from panic) in a way similar to the principle of free speech.

(B) This says, "X is true. After all, X fits the observed facts better than any other explanation." This doesn't match the argument at all. There are no observed facts presented and no explanation being sought.

(C) "Experimental results"?

(D) No one is trying to "explain a phenomenon". That means to offer the causal reason for why the phenomenon happened. This author was trying to defend or justify a certain practice by analogizing with another acceptable practice.

(E) There is no particular case … i.e. "Therefore, BELGIUM's government was not In violation of free-market principles."

Takeaway/Pattern: Describe questions are simply "if it matches, it's right". Students are often turned off by the abstract language of the answer choices. If you were tempted by a term because YOUR definition is different from LSATs, try to flashcard or come back to that answer choice a couple more times to make sure you align your understanding of these terms with LSATs.

#officialexplanation

[lisahollchang]

I chose the correct answer A for this one but was confused by the wording. In particular, I didn't get how a set of principles was being "limited." I'm wondering if anybody can explain this in another way that I can understand. Thanks!

[dtangie23]

The question sets up two somewhat parallel situations:

1) Free-market principles are not violated when limitations are imposed on foreign investors/lenders to prevent the harm of economic collapse.

2) Free speech is not violated when limitations are imposed to prevent the harm that can occur as a result of screaming "Fire" in a crowded room.

In other words, we need to impose some restrictions, or limitations, on both free market principles and free speech in order to prevent potential harm. The argument is showing how the above two situations are seemingly analogous.

If we can limit speech by telling people that they can't shout "fire" in a crowded room and still preserve freedom of speech, then why can't we limit the activity of investors/lenders and still preserve free market principles?

[lisahollchang]

Ahah! I see it now. Thanks!

[tamwaiman]

Would (A) be better if it changes to say that a set of principle (of limitation) is feasible/acceptable in a specific way by using ... ...? Because of the indication that the principle is limited, I hesitate to choose (A).

Thank you.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

No, the limited part is important. Just like the free-market principles are limited, so too is one's right to free speech. So it's actually a good thing that the answer choice discusses limits both on free-market principles and free speech.

[nbayar1212]

Why can't E be right?

The reason I didn't choose A was because it used the term "principle" to describe the fire situation but I thought it was more of an example that proved the author's point about free market principles not being violated.

I chose E because the fire example seemed like an empirical generalization since it was basically saying "when we look to another aspect of our world i.e. shouting fire in a theater, we know its not ok."

Any help?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good questions you're bringing up here nbayar1212!

First, the words principle and generalization simply mean rules that can be applied to numerous situations. In that sense, both answer choices are equal. The reason the principle works well in answer choice (A) is because both situations compared within the analogy are actually rules that can be applied to two different situations, either when a nation is facing a financial crisis or when someone is sitting in a movie theater--these are rules of thumb that can always be applied.

Second, what is an empirical generalization? Well the word empirical is defined as derived from experiment at dictionary.com
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empirical?s=t

Hopefully you can see that the argument is not appealing to experimental evidence, but rather comparing to supposedly analogous rules.

Hope that helps!

[nbayar1212]

Thanks for the reply Matt!

I looked at the definitions and I definitely agree that the situation is not based on any kind of experiment. However, definition number two states that empirical is defined as "depending upon experience or observation alone" and the New American Oxford Dictionary on my computer defines it "verifiable by observation or experience."

This is why I thought of the fire situation as an empirical generalization i.e. it is a statement based on what the author of the stimulus thinks is true of the world he or she observes.

If you think I am still missing something I would definitely like to hear any your thoughts but as it stands I am having a hard time convincing myself that A is more reasonable than E - let alone being able to justify saying E is flat out wrong.

[mahamansoor]

If you think I am still missing something I would definitely like to hear any your thoughts but as it stands I am having a hard time convincing myself that A is more reasonable than E - let alone being able to justify saying E is flat out wrong.

Hi there,

I'll take a stab (cognizant that you wrote this in 2012)...
The reason why E is not correct is because the argument does not apply the "empirical generalization" to 1 "particular case", but instead, to two cases.

Even more, he does not "apply" a generalization. He compares one case to an analogous one to demonstrate the limited application of principles... thus, he is not applying a generalization - there is no generalization here...