The stimulus is simply a principle. The form of the principle is that we should not restrict X (performance of any actions) or Y (likely results) unless Z (prevent negative effects on others). We're asked to find something that is inconsistent with this principle. Finding something that restricts either X or Y without stating Z would be enough to be inconsistent with it.
A. This answer choice says we should not restrict X. It then says that we can restrict X when Z applies. This is consistent with the stimulus. We were looking for something inconsistent.
B. This answer has nothing to do with the principle in the stimulus. Restricting monetary gain is not the same thing as restricting performance. Since it is irrelevant, we can't say that it is inconsistent with the stimulus, and is therefore incorrect.
C. This just says we should not restrict X. Since the stimulus said "don't restrict X, unless one important thing happens," the idea that we shouldn't restrict X is consistent with the stimulus.
D. This says that we should restrict X. It then goes on to say that Z applies... that's the one case in which it's OK according to the stimulus to restrict X. So this isn't our answer.
E. This is the right answer. This says that we should restrict X, but without Z. Z is causing harm to others, while this answer choice is about causing harm to oneself. Therefore this answer choice is inconsistent with the stimulus and is the correct answer choice.
About Larkin: Larkin Robson is an LSAT Tutor and Attorney based out of New York City. He has a JD from NYU School of Law, has taught at West Virginia University School of Law and John Jay College in Manhattan. He has been teaching the LSAT for 8 years and founded an independent boutique LSAT company called 180 Degrees LSAT. Like Nathan, he scored a 179 on the actual test. His website is 180degreeslsat.com Tweet him @180degreeslsat.
From Larkin: I like the LSAT because there is actually a reason for the test. It is testing critical thinking and reading comprehension, both skills that are useful and valuable in the real world. I am a die hard philosophy buff and I think that the humanities and critical thinking are vastly undervalued in today's society, and the LSAT is essentially testing those skills. It means that studying for the test does not mean you are just studying for a stupid test, you are actually learning something useful.
Please ask questions and/or suggest corrections to anything that seems confusing... we want to make this the best resource we can for LSAT students. We'll have all the June 2013 explanations up as quickly as possible. Thanks for reading. Tell your friends! --nathan