June 2004 LSAT Section 2 Question 15

Kendrick: Governments that try to prevent cigarettes from being advertised are justified in doing so, since such adv...

Jazzy on October 11 at 05:46PM

Is this question slightly different than other Paradox Questions?

Hi: I chose B as I thought this question asked for an answer that "would mostly be helpful to explain the apparent paradox/contradiction in A's statements". However, after reviewing the explanations, I feel like this question a bit different, as it instead concerns what would be helpful to "resolve" such conflict, posing a sense of normativity and propositions. Would this be a legitimate difference from other paradox questions?

Replies

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Emil-Kunkin on October 12 at 01:07PM

This did feel a little odd because of the normative ideas here, and while I'm not sure if it's truly different in kind, this requires more and arguably different work to determine what the paradox even is.

Here, I think the first statement is just that governments are morally ok to fight something, and the second is that they are not morally allowed to ban it.

This barely even feels like a paradox, since I can think of plenty examples of thing where it's ok to disincentivize but not ok to ban. However, that is the crux of the "paradox" here, and so all we need is an explanation of why that would be the case.

I get your urge to differentiate cigs from fatty foods, since that would strengthen the argument. However, the core of the paradox is just that it's ok to disincentivize, but not to ban, and so the apparent tension we need to resolve is just that we need to stop something, but we are to allowed to use the most extreme method of stopping it.

I'm going back and forth as to whether this is a significant difference from other paradox questions, but I do think it's worth noting that often the apparent paradox will not necessarily be a paradox in the traditional sense, and will sometimes feel more like what we have here.

Jazzy on October 12 at 04:37PM

I see. Thanks for your thorough explanation; it really helps to see that the paradox in this question is about "to disincentivize" and/but "not to ban", rather than "cig" vs. "fatty food". Definitely feels a bit tricky! Guess I will have to pay more attention to every sense of difference in the future?