Q20 - Critic: Although some people claim

[mrudula_2005]

I got this question correct, but I'm having trouble pinpointing exactly why B is that much better than A, D, or E? Many thanks in advance!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Thanks for the great question!

The argument concludes that it is consistent to support freedom of speech and also support legislation limiting the amount of violence in TV programs.

The argument claims that it is consistent to do so because the damage done by violent TV programs is more harmful than the decrease in freedom.

This is relative argument. It says, "yeah, there's some damage in the loss of freedom, but the damage done by not limiting the freedom would be even worse."

We're asked to find a principle that would support this argument. Remember, when supporting an argument with a principle, it's important to bridge the gap between the evidence and the conclusion. Keep in mind on this one that the conclusion is that it is consistent to support both the limiting legislation and freedom of speech.

(A) helps, but does not support the idea that it is consistent to support both.
(B) says that support of both is consistent and is the correct answer.
(C) is totally irrelevant. What would make people happy is never discussed in the stimulus.
(D) says that we should support the legislation, but does not say that support of the legislation is consistent with supporting freedom of speech.
(E) says that we should support the legislation, but does not say that support of the legislation is consistent with supporting freedom of speech.

I hope this helps clear things up on this question. If you still need a little more help with it, please let me know!

#OfficialExplanation

[mrudula_2005]

Hi! Thanks so much! Very helpful to keep in mind that in a principle question "it's important to bridge the gap between the evidence and the conclusion." That was key in realizing why the other choices didn't fit. Thank you!

[geverett]

In regards to A and E. They use the terms "basic right". Would it be safe or unsafe to assume that freedom of speech is a "basic right". I got rid of both A and E on those grounds also, because it was not stated in the stimulus. thoughts?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Good question! And after just reading your post, I thought to myself, if it doesn't say that "freedom of speech" is a basic right, then we cannot assume that it is. But after rereading the question, I would grant the test-writer this one. If however, I was conflicted between two answers and needed grounds for dismissing one, then I might tighten things up and use that as grounds for dismissing one of the answer choices. But in the context of the question, I'd give it to them on this one.

[jionggangtu]

I was thrown off by "other interests" in B.
I thought it was just one harm is greater than the other harm.
So we pick the less harmful one. Don't really think it is an interest.


I know D is not as good in terms of describing the extent of harm. I was expecting something like more harmful or less harmful, not just some harm.

Between B and D, I picked D.

Can anyone explain why we treat less harm as an interest?

[wj097]

Good question! And after just reading your post, I thought to myself, if it doesn't say that "freedom of speech" is a basic right, then we cannot assume that it is. But after rereading the question, I would grant the test-writer this one. If however, I was conflicted between two answers and needed grounds for dismissing one, then I might tighten things up and use that as grounds for dismissing one of the answer choices. But in the context of the question, I'd give it to them on this one.

I had hard time deciding between B and D. I saw the argument including an intermediate conclusion, and D snugly fit into that.

P. Violent program is more harm then decreasing freedom of speech
IC. We can limit TV program
MC. Limiting TV program and supporting freedom of speech is compatible.

With such interpretation would you get rid of (D) with unwarranted assumption (freedom of speech = basic freedom) or just not consider the IC as that important in solving this question..

Thx

[raziel]

Notice that the argument is an ascriptive argument. That is, like a lot of arguments in the test, it is trying to prove that the position of the other people it mentions is wrong. Therefore, the evidence provided is everything else that comes in the argument. The biggest gap that we find is the fact that the author assumes that the evidence he provides is enough to prove his conclusion.

The conclusion of the author is that it is consistent to support freedom of speech and support legislation to restrict violent tv. The evidence provided is everything else. From the fact that it would be less harmful to restrict, the author concludes that it is not inconsistent to support both.

So in order to prove the conclusion, answer (D) would not be sufficient. On the other hand, (B) allows us to show that it may not be inconsistent to support both. "I really support freedom of speech FOR ALL, but if watching T.V. inspires children to sell meth
then I would not support it in that specific case".

[tian.application]

i got it wrong but now i see why it is wrong

conclusion: XXX is not inconsistent with XXX.

Support: We CAN limit XXX because XXX

I got (D), a wrong answer, thinking that (B) is not sufficient to justify the restriction TV. however, the argument was not a conclusive statement. it supported the conclusion with a reason started with we "CAN", so it does not mean we "SHOULD" restrict TV because we need to pick the less harmful act; instead it was saying that by that virtue we "CAN".

by notifying this difference, now i see (D) is wrong and (B) is right.

(D) we SHOULD do XXX (unsupported)
(B) we can support (right)

[daijob]

If D talks about freedom of speech would it be correct too?
Or still wrong because "should" is too extreme?
I thought for principle or justify questions, they can be comprehensive, so using strong word like "should" is actually good (bc it will justify and provide a principle).

[tommywallach]

"Should" can be correct, but overall it's pretty weak, because it doesn't create any kind of logical connection. I'd say you're better off being skeptical of should, not drawn to it.

-t

[daijob]

Hi, thanks for your reply,
so...If D talks about freedom of speech would it be correct too?

[tommywallach]

Possibly. It would depend exactly on the words. This is why I'm always skeptical of playing the "Would X answer choice be correct if it said Y?" If it's a correct answer, it's a correct answer, if you know what I mean. If you want to suggest a few exact alternate answer choices, wondering whether or not they could also qualify as correct, we could weigh in on them, but as a general statement of language, it would depend.

-t