LSAT Question Explanation
PT 108, Section 2, Question 12
Identify the FlawArgument structure
One’s freedom is always worth the risk of losing one’s life.
In the example of a person locked in a bare cement room, the person is not really living and has nothing to lose.
Explanation
This is a very extreme example that the author then uses to try to justify a general claim.
Consider: Sure, if I were locked in a bare cement room and the only way to escape were to risk my life, I would probably consider risking it. But if, for example, my freedom was violated because I had to pay income tax under threat of execution, I would probably just pay my taxes. It may not always be worth risking one's life for freedom.
Answer choices
The argument isn't related to if freedom is the single most valuable thing in the world, just that it's worth risking one's life for.
It doesn't matter if it's always possible to rebel physically. The author is just saying freedom is worth risking one's life for.
In the extreme example given, it may be worth risking one's life for freedom. That doesn't mean it's always worth risking one's life for freedom.
The conclusion is about a person risking their life for their own freedom, not for others.
It doesn't matter if people have the courage to actually risk their life for freedom. The author is just arguing that it would be worth the risk.