Critical Reasoning

Government Official: Clearly, censorship exists if we, as citizens, are not allowed to communicate what we are ready to communicate at our own expense or if other citizens are not permitted access to our communications at their own expense. Public unwillingness to provide funds for certain kinds of scientific, scholarly, or artistic activities cannot, therefore, be described as censorship.

The flawed reasoning in the government official's argument is most parallel to that in which one of the following?

A. All actions that cause unnecessary harm to others are unjust; so if a just action causes harm to others, that action must be necessary.
B. Since there is more to good manners than simply using polite forms of address, it is not possible to say on first meeting a person whether or not that person has good manners.
C. Acrophobia, usually defined as a morbid fear of heights, can also mean a morbid fear of sharp objects. Since both fears have the same name, they undoubtedly have the same origin.
D. There is no doubt that a deed is heroic if the doer risks his or her own life to benefit another person. Thus an action is not heroic if the only thing it endangers is the reputation of the doer.
E. Perception of beauty in an object is determined by past and present influences on the mind of the beholder. Thus no object can be called beautiful, since not everyone will see beauty in it.

OA after some discussion.
Please opt with reasons!

I will take a plunge here.

IMO (D).

Government Official: Clearly, censorship exists if we, as citizens, are not allowed to communicate what we are ready to communicate at our own expense or if other citizens are not permitted access to our communications at their own expense. Public unwillingness to provide funds for certain kinds of scientific, scholarly, or artistic activities cannot, therefore, be described as censorship.

The structure --> A exists if B happens. Therefore if C happens, then A does not exist.

D) --> Heroic (A) exists if risks for own life/benefit (B) happens. Thus if endangering of reputation (C) happens, heroic (A) does not exist.

This is my rough summarisation. The other choices do not fit the bill exactly. I am not getting into the details.

What is the OA? And can this kind of a question be expected on GMAT? I doubt. I believe this is an LSAT question.

My attempt:

Government Official: Clearly, censorship exists if we, as citizens, are not allowed to communicate what we are ready to communicate at our own expense or if other citizens are not permitted access to our communications at their own expense. Public unwillingness to provide funds for certain kinds of scientific, scholarly, or artistic activities cannot, therefore, be described as censorship.

The above argument can be summarized as :
1.If Willing to pay and No access-------> Then Censorship

2.If Unwilling to pay and Access---> No censorship.

It can be clearly seen that statement 2 is complement of statement 1.

The flawed reasoning in the government official's argument is most parallel to that in which one of the following?

A. All actions that cause unnecessary harm to others are unjust; so if a just action causes harm to others, that action must be necessary.


****
If Action --->Unnecessary harm---> Then Unjust action
If Just Action---> Harm---> necessary action

The above two are not complementary to each other.




B. Since there is more to good manners than simply using polite forms of address, it is not possible to say on first meeting a person whether or not that person has good manners.

**Does not mimic the logic.

C. Acrophobia, usually defined as a morbid fear of heights, can also mean a morbid fear of sharp objects. Since both fears have the same name, they undoubtedly have the same origin.

**Doesn't mimic the logic.

D. There is no doubt that a deed is heroic if the doer risks his or her own life to benefit another person. Thus an action is not heroic if the only thing it endangers is the reputation of the doer.

**If doer risks his life (without caring for his reputation....a valid assumption) to benefit others----> then Heroic deed.
If doer risks his reputation only ----> then not heroic deed.

The above two statements complement each other.

CORRECT. Mimics the logic.



E. Perception of beauty in an object is determined by past and present influences on the mind of the beholder. Thus no object can be called beautiful, since not everyone will see beauty in it.

**Doesn't mimic the logic.

GmatKiss wrote:Government Official: Clearly, censorship exists if we, as citizens, are not allowed to communicate what we are ready to communicate at our own expense or if other citizens are not permitted access to our communications at their own expense. Public unwillingness to provide funds for certain kinds of scientific, scholarly, or artistic activities cannot, therefore, be described as censorship.

The flawed reasoning in the government official's argument is most parallel to that in which one of the following?

A. All actions that cause unnecessary harm to others are unjust; so if a just action causes harm to others, that action must be necessary.
B. Since there is more to good manners than simply using polite forms of address, it is not possible to say on first meeting a person whether or not that person has good manners.
C. Acrophobia, usually defined as a morbid fear of heights, can also mean a morbid fear of sharp objects. Since both fears have the same name, they undoubtedly have the same origin.
D. There is no doubt that a deed is heroic if the doer risks his or her own life to benefit another person. Thus an action is not heroic if the only thing it endangers is the reputation of the doer.
E. Perception of beauty in an object is determined by past and present influences on the mind of the beholder. Thus no object can be called beautiful, since not everyone will see beauty in it.

OA after some discussion.
Please opt with reasons!

IMO (A)

GmatKiss plz post the OA. And if possible with official explanation.

IMO D