PrepTest 112, Section 3, Question 20
Critic: Although some people claim it is inconsistent(53 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AIn evaluating legislation(17 more words not shown)
- BOne can support(18 more words not shown)
- CWhen facing a(23 more words not shown)
- DIf the exercise(17 more words not shown)
- EIn some circumstances,(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Can you support a freedom and still accept a particular limit on it? That is the tension the critic needs to resolve.
At first, I might look for a distinction about where the speech appears. Perhaps someone could favor allowing a program somewhere while limiting its availability in a setting easily accessed by children. That would be one possible line of argument, but it isn't the reason this critic gives.
The critic instead accepts that the legislation would decrease freedom of speech. The claimed justification is that the damage from the violent programs is worse than the damage from that decrease. So the point isn't that no freedom is being restricted. It is that supporting this restriction can be consistent with supporting freedom of speech.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for a principle that helps justify that reasoning. I'd look for permission to support a freedom without treating it as overriding every competing concern. Whether I personally favor the legislation doesn't determine which rule would help the critic defend the claimed consistency.
Working the answers
- A
Considering what happens without the legislation would help evaluate its consequences. But it doesn't tell us whether accepting a restriction is consistent with supporting the freedom. We could consider those consequences and still need a rule resolving that particular tension. A is less direct than B.
- BCorrect
This says someone can support freedom of speech while recognizing that other interests sometimes take priority. That is the connection the critic needs. The critic can acknowledge a loss of freedom, judge the competing harm more important in this case, and still claim to support the general freedom.
B doesn't say restrictions are always justified or that any disliked speech should be limited. It allows the combination of positions the argument is defending. The critic's comparison of harms then gives a proposed reason to accept a limit in this case.
- C
This introduces the happiness of the greatest number. The argument compares harms, but it doesn't tell us which choice would maximize the number of happy people. More importantly, C supplies a decision rule without directly explaining how support for freedom of speech can coexist with accepting a restriction.
- D
This would recommend restrictions whenever exercising a freedom causes some harm. But recommending a restriction isn't the same as explaining why someone who supports that restriction can still consistently support the freedom. D speaks to whether to limit the activity; B addresses the combination of commitments the critic explicitly defends.
- E
Some restrictions being worth tolerating doesn't identify which circumstances qualify, or explain whether tolerating them is compatible with supporting the affected freedom. E moves toward accepting regulation in general. B more precisely supplies the principle the critic needs about supporting freedom of speech while allowing other interests sometimes to override it.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.