shirando21
Thanks Received: 16
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 280
Joined: July 18th, 2012
 
 
 

Q3 - Allowing everyone to voice personal views

by shirando21 Tue Jul 24, 2012 2:44 pm

Why is A the correct answer?
what is the discrepancy here?
I picked E.
 
timmydoeslsat
Thanks Received: 887
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: June 20th, 2011
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
trophy
Most Thanked
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q3 - Allowing everyone to voice personal views

by timmydoeslsat Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:31 pm

shirando21 Wrote:Why is A the correct answer?
what is the discrepancy here?
I picked E.

The discrepancy is how can allowing everybody the freedom to express personal views actually allow some people to have their speech inhibited (stopped).

Imagine this scenario:

We let everybody have freedom of speech. Person A states out loud that any person that claims to like the Los Angeles Dodgers will be punched by him.

Now Person B does not feel comfortable saying out loud that he is a huge Dodgers fan.

He is afraid of the bodily harm he may receive from Person A.

Answer choice E does not show where somone's speech would be stopped. They are actually still voicing their disagreement, which means their speech is not being inhibited.

Our example shows how answer choice A resolves the seemingly paradoxical situation.
Last edited by timmydoeslsat on Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
shirando21
Thanks Received: 16
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 280
Joined: July 18th, 2012
 
 
 

Re: Q3 - Allowing everyone to voice personal views

by shirando21 Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:43 pm

So the two sentences in the stimulus are talking about the same thing?

I thought the discrepancy is as we know free speech inhitis some from voicing their concerns, why should we still allow free speech? In that way, we need to find an advantage unrestricted free speech has, and probably overweigh the effect of inhibiting some free speech.
 
timmydoeslsat
Thanks Received: 887
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 1136
Joined: June 20th, 2011
 
 
trophy
Most Thanked
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q3 - Allowing everyone to voice personal views

by timmydoeslsat Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:51 pm

shirando21 Wrote:So the two sentences in the stimulus are talking about the same thing?

I thought the discrepancy is as we know free speech inhitis some from voicing their concerns, why should we still allow free speech? In that way, we need to find an advantage unrestricted free speech has, and probably overweigh the effect of inhibiting some free speech.

We want to know why allowing everyone the freedom to express their personal views would cause others to inhibit their own speech.

The example given in my previous post shows how this situation may arise.

We do not care about why free speech should still happen or anything like that.

Our task is to explain the situation and how it could possibly happen.
 
shirando21
Thanks Received: 16
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 280
Joined: July 18th, 2012
 
 
 

Re: Q3 - Allowing everyone to voice personal views

by shirando21 Tue Jul 24, 2012 3:52 pm

ok, thanks.
User avatar
 
WaltGrace1983
Thanks Received: 207
Atticus Finch
Atticus Finch
 
Posts: 837
Joined: March 30th, 2013
 
This post thanked 1 time.
 
trophy
Most Thanked
trophy
Most Thankful
trophy
First Responder
 

Re: Q3 - Allowing everyone to voice personal views

by WaltGrace1983 Sat Apr 12, 2014 3:30 pm

"...allowing unrestricted free speech really inhibits free speech." This is what we are trying to show. How would we do this? We would do this by showing that the principle of free speech still does not lend itself to free speech for everyone.

In other words, we are looking for an answer choice that will say something like, "although free speech was granted to person X/group Y/people Z/etc., others still do not feel comfortable or cannot speak freely."

    (A) does this pretty well! It says that when free speech is unrestricted, many people still are afraid to voice concerns (in other words, speak freely). Being afraid is adequate to show that free speech is hindered or inhibited.


Let's look at the wrong ones...

    (B) "When there is unrestricted free speech..." is a good start! This provides the sufficient condition we are looking for. However, all it says is that these views will be "offensive." Does "offensive" mean that free speech will be inhibited? Not exactly. I could be offended by something and, in doing so, I can actually have more courage to speak my mind! Now we could make some unwarranted assumptions to make this work but that would still be making unwarranted assumptions - which is never good for the LSAT.

    (C) We don't need to know when free speech should be restricted. We need to discuss the issue from the principle that free speech is already restricted and we need to find something about what happens when it is restricted.

    (D) I have no idea how this relevant. This might be one of the worst LSAT answer choices I have ever seen.

    (E) This may actually be the opposite of what we want! If people are "likely to voice their disagreement," this implies that free speech is not only unrestricted - it is very much alive for everyone!