Q11 - civil libertarian: the categorical prohibition of any

[Nina]

how is the censorship advocate's reason irrelevant, as stated in the correct answer D.

thanks for help!

[csunnerberg13]

how is the censorship advocate's reason irrelevant, as stated in the correct answer D.

thanks for help!

Civil Libertarian argument: Prohibiting any nonviolent means of expression inevitably poisons a society's intellectual atmosphere
--> Those advocating censorship of all potentially offensive art are pursuing a course that is harmful to society.

Censorship argument: Many people are in agreement about what constitutes potentially offensive art. --> CL is wrong.

So what should have surprised you here is that the civil libertarian left many holes in his argument, and the censorship advocate didn't even attack a single one of them! There are several gaps in CL's argument: is it harmful to society to poison the intellectual atmosphere? Is potentially offensive art to be considered nonviolent? Instead of talking about either of these apparent issues, the censorship advocate basically just says that some people agree about what offensive art is. That doesn't address what the civil libertarian was saying in his argument

These answer choices are all common flaws, but they aren't what happen here
(A) He doesn't really establish a general rule, and even if we could say he does - there's no specific case for him doing so.

(B) we don't necessarily know that this principle he presents is inaccurate, but we can say there's no commonly held belief here. If you're thinking "many people agree" is a commonly held belief - remember that "many" only means "some" - so it could be just one person that believes that.

(C) he doesn't attack his character.

(D) is what we suggested - the information he's offering is just irrelevant. It doesn't address the reasoning of his argument. we need him to address the harm to society or the poisoned intellectual atmosphere - something of that nature needs to be spoken about for his response to make sense.

(E) isn't what happens. He's still talking about the issue at hand, he's just supplying irrelevant information about it.

[uhdang]

When I look at these answer choices, I feel 100% sure of D) as the correct answer, but B) leaves me a bit of lingering feeling. When I was going through the question, I immediately saw "commonly held belief" in B) and decided that there is none of that in the argument, and eliminated it.

But when I came back for a review, and asked myself, "could 'commonly held belief' be the fact that 'many people are in agreement about what constitutes potentially offensive art'?" And the answer is not 100% certain.

(B) we don't necessarily know that this principle he presents is inaccurate, but we can say there's no commonly held belief here. If you're thinking "many people agree" is a commonly held belief - remember that "many" only means "some" - so it could be just one person that believes that.

First of all, I would have to disagree with this reasoning, because "many" can't be just one person.

Then, how do "commonly" match with "many"? I sense could be or could not be overlapping point when comparing these two. They could both indicate "most" people believing / agreeing with the point, or "many" could just be insufficient to satisfy "commonly." So, here is where I drew a blank..

So, I tried to find other flaws in this answer choice, and saw "extracting an erroneous principle." What Censorship Advocate is claiming is, or his "principle" in his response is, "the fact that many people are in agreement with what constitutes offensive art is good enough to outweigh censorship's harmful effect to society." and this is nonsense, erroneous as well as out of scope because reasons themselves are irrelevant as explained in D). So, I thought maybe judging CA's opinion as erroneous itself is NOT a flaw but just an irrelevant point?

I can't make out a clear reason for eliminating B). So, help me out please.

[rinagoldfield]

csunnerberg13 ‘s post about is on point. As he/ she writes:

Civil Libertarian argument: Prohibiting any nonviolent means of expression inevitably poisons a society's intellectual atmosphere
--> Those advocating censorship of all potentially offensive art are pursuing a course that is harmful to society.

Censorship argument: Many people are in agreement about what constitutes potentially offensive art. --> CL is wrong.

So what should have surprised you here is that the civil libertarian left many holes in his argument, and the censorship advocate didn't even attack a single one of them! There are several gaps in CL's argument: is it harmful to society to poison the intellectual atmosphere? Is potentially offensive art to be considered nonviolent? Instead of talking about either of these apparent issues, the censorship advocate basically just says that some people agree about what offensive art is. That doesn't address what the civil libertarian was saying in his argument.


Great analysis!

(A) is incorrect because no specific cases are cited.
(B) Is incorrect because no principles are extracted.
(C) Is incorrect be no such attach is made.
(D) Is correct; whether people agree about what art is offensive is irrelevant to whether prohibiting art harms society.
(E) Is incorrect because no such language is used.

[roflcoptersoisoi]

Premise: Many people are in general agreement about what constitutes potentially offensive art
Conclusion: It is not the case that those advocating for cencorship of all potentially offensive art are pursuing a course that is harmful to society.

What? Really.

Is the fact that many are in agreemenet abut what potentiall offensive art is sufficient to prove that those advocating for it's censorship are pursuing a a course that is harmful to society? The premise and the the conclusion seem to me completely disjointed.

(A) No faulty extrapolation is used in the argument.
(B) What commonly held belief? The fact that many people agree about what potentially offensive art is does not mean it's a commonly held belief. Also, we don't know that the conclusion drawn is an erreneous principle.
(C) No ad hominem attack.
(D) Looks good.
(E) No inflammatory language is used to obfuscate the issue at hand.