Top Law Schools

Can someone explain this to me pls?
Dec 2003

I dont understand the part after however.
it says that intllectual discipline is necessary for intellectual progres..

i dont undrstand how that connects to freedom of thought..?

thanks

This is a tough question. It boils down to this: The conclusion is intellectual freedom is not needed for becoming smarter (intellectual progress). Why? Because you actually need intellectual discipline.

It'd be like saying this: Some people say you need to be fast to do well on the LSAT, but that's not true because you actually need to be methodical.

What's the assumption? That being methodical means you can't be fast.

With question 19, it's similar. It assumes that requiring discipline means you can't require intellectual freedom.

There's a lot of extraneous parts to the stimulus, so boiling the argument down to its core is essential.

Does that make sense?

Atlas LSAT Teacher wrote: Does that make sense?

Yes thanks
I understood that they were arguing that freedom of thought is not a precondition (is not necessary) for int. prog. and that later they say
but int. discipline is necc for int. prog. but i didnt undrstand the link.

now i get that somehow freedom of thought excludes discipline.

great. tough question -- particularly since there are some tricky wrong answers, and the "society protects" thing throws off a lot of folks.