LSAT-11-1-20

20.   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 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 only thing it endangers is the reputation of the doer.（D）

(E) Perception of beauty in an object is determined by past and present influences on the mind of the beholder. Thus on object can be called beautiful, since not everyone will see beauty in it.

，我蒙对了，但没看懂提干

如果我花自己的钱去COMMUNICATE 或者花自己的钱去ACCESS 别人的COMMUNICATIONS, 你不让,  这叫CENSORSHIP

所以, 公众拒绝为一些活动(别人)掏自己的腰包就不能说是CENSORSHIP

even though I still cant' get the exact meaning of CENSORSHIP in this passage, anyway, I only need to know how to make the right choice.

thanks!

Say, I want to pay 100000000000RMB to put up a commercial at CCTV, saying that China has no freedom of speech.

of course nobody would allow me to communicate this view,(though it is so so true)

This is cencorship.

Finally I understood.

at own expense to communicate,but are not allowed to ------censorship

unwillingness to provide funds(not at own expense)------- not censorship

The conclusion is : A---B, ===== negA---ne

Thanks chelseayang!

I got it too! benefit from you guys' discussion

but a bit to clarify: I think it is not a reasoning of negation of the premise,rather, it is just establishing a definition and then see if another meets the definition.