I've always LOVED this method of solving this type of question,
WaltGrace1983!
I think I may be able to help you simplify it even further. Don't split that first sentence into two separate conditionals. The conditional keyword "except perhaps" functions exactly the same way that "unless" functions. So, we can think of that first sentence as giving us a rule that says:
If you don't fall into the exception clause, then gov't restriction on liberty IS WRONG.We have no earthly idea what kinds of things would guarantee something being
right, or
offensive. All we've got is a rule that will prove
wrongness in certain situations.
That swiftly and powerfully eliminates
(B),
(C), and
(D), just as you note! And we are safe with the remaining answers that conclude something is "not right", because if our nifty rule gets triggered, we'll know that something is
wrong - which surely means it ain't right!
Now, we have to assess whether
(A) or
(E) triggers our nifty rule. One of them has got fall clearly outside the exception clause - that's the only way we'll know that it's
wrong. And that exception clause has something to do with harm. For sanity's sake, I simplify it this way:
If a thing is not harmful --> wrong to restrict.
(A) talks about something that is "only offensive" - well, what do we know about offensive stuff? We know it doesn't, by itself, cause harm. So, really, we're talking about a definitively
not harmful thing. And the only way for the government to avoid the conclusion of
wrongness is to invoke the spectre of harm! This ain't going to cut it to get the gov't off the hook - it's still wrong!
And what about
(E)? This talks about something that's not
seriously harmful. Well, that's nice, but what if it's a little harmful, in a non-serious way? Would it fall into the exception clause about harm? I don't know! Maybe?! We can't conclude that this thing is or isn't wrong! If it causes a little harm, maybe it's still okay for the gov't to restrict it.
Simplified, these answers look like this, side by side:
(A) Non-harmful thing --> wrong to restrict
(E) Not
seriously harmful thing --> wrong to restrict
I 10000% endorse the method of eliminating answers that come up with results we have no way of knowing ('not wrong' and 'offensive') as a first attack! Just be careful not to overcomplicate the conditional you're working with!
Keep up the truly excellent work!