请教LSAT8-2-13

Because some student demonstrations protesting his scheduled appearance have resulted in violence, the president of the Imperialist Society has been prevented from speaking about politics on campus by the dean of student affairs. Yet to deny anyone the unrestricted freedom to speak is to threaten everyone's right to free expression. Hence the dean's decision has threatened everyone's right to free expression.

The pattern of reasoning displayed above is most closely paralleled in which one of the following?
(A) Dr. Pacheco saved a child's life by performing emergency surgery. But surgery rarely involves any risk to the surgeon. Therefore, if an act is not heroic unless it requires the actor to take some risk. Dr. Pacheco's surgery was not heroic.
(B) Because anyone who performs an act of heroism acts altruistically rather than selfishly, a society that rewards heroism encourages altruism rather than pure self-interest.
(C) In order to rescue a drowning child, Isabel jumped into a freezing river. Such acts of heroism performed to save the Life of one enrich the lives of all. Hence. Isabel's action enriched the lives of all.
(D) Fire fighters are often expected to perform heroically under harsh conditions. But no one is ever required to act heroically. Hence, fire fighters are often expected to perform actions they are not required to perform.
(E) Acts of extreme generosity are usually above and beyond the call of duty. Therefore. most acts of extreme generosity are heroic, since all actions that are above and beyond the call of duty are heroic
answer:c

翻半天翻到一篇以前的解释，说是“稻草人”逻辑模型：

Person A has position X.

Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).

Person B attacks position Y.

Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.

对于原文我还能理解为什么是稻草人逻辑模型，对于C选项实在不明白，C选项的逻辑推导过程中并没有转折说第一个观点不对，然后得出结论阿?这显然跟原文的逻辑推导方式就有很大差别了。

请nn指点

pay attenton to the structure of the reasoning.It is using a general principal, "deny anyone the unrestricted freedom to speak is to threaten everyone's right to free expression" to conclude the act of a specific instance - "dean's decision has threatened everyone's right to free expression". 

Deny to speak (by the dean) -> (dean) threthen free expression.

Only C matches this reasoning.

So actually the reasoning in the article is right? After all, applying a general principle, "deny anyone the unrestricted freedom to speak is to threaten everyone's right to free expression", to a specific instance "dean's decision has threatened everyone's right to free expression" is not wrong.

I am so stupid to think reasoning in article is wrong but in Answer C is right!