A stated milder measure changes a proportionality argument

A fictional classroom case states that a competent authority wants to prohibit a peaceful outdoor assembly. The case expressly assumes an applicable legal framework and that a less restrictive measure would achieve the same legitimate protective objective. A learner argues that the ban must be justified merely because it might help achieve the objective. The exercise asks for the missing reasoning step without giving a real gathering, current state statute or concrete danger forecast. A proper analysis should preserve the stated assumptions and distinguish suitability from necessity. It should not promise that every real assembly must be allowed or that authorities can never impose conditions. Real cases require the actual law, facts and available procedures; this recognition exercise tests only the relationship between the supplied assumptions and the stated justification.