Q3 - Politician: The legal right to free speech does not

[ohthatpatrick]

Question Type:
Main Point (as opposed to ID the Conclusion)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Conclusion: The various exceptions we have to our right to free speech deserve to be against the law.
Evidence: (though different situations), these exceptional cases all likely lead to serious harm.

Answer Anticipation:
When question stems ask "What is the Main Point" or "What is the author arguing", it's a little different from ID the Conclusion. Instead of JUST identifying the conclusion claim, we are allowed to add in the evidence as well. After all, an "argument" is "a conclusion supported by at least one premise", so if we're asked what the author is 'arguing' we might expect to hear both.

PRIORITY: get the conclusion right. ALLOWABLE: package in "the why".

Correct Answer:
A

Answer Choice Analysis:
(A) This just replicates the last sentence, which is the author's conclusion and premise.

(B) This is too broad. The author's conclusion is about endorsing criminalizing "THESE forms of speech". She's not giving a general rule for all cases.

(C) The author is never making the point that restricting speech leads to harm. The author is saying, "In these few cases, ALLOWING free speech leads to harm, which is why we restrict free speech for these cases."

(D) This is a broad universal claim the author never made. Sure, any form of speech MAY one way or another lead to serious harm. The author is saying these criminalized forms of speech are all LIKELY to lead to serious harm.

(E) This seems very specific and extreme. Did the author say that "likely to lead to serious harm" is THE ONLY possible reason you could ever justify free speech?

Takeaway/Pattern: Asking us for what the author "argues" could essentially mean "What is the argument core?", and (A) delivers a good match for the conclusion and premise in the final sentence.

#officialexplanation