PrepTest 115, Section 2, Question 3
Letter to the editor: Allowing everyone to voice(22 more words not shown)
Which one of the following,(11 more words not shown)
- AWhen free speech(24 more words not shown)
- BWhen there is(24 more words not shown)
- CSince unrestricted free(17 more words not shown)
- DClaiming that unrestricted(16 more words not shown)
- EWhen free speech(21 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Someone can be allowed to speak and still be afraid to say what they think. That distinction matters here.
The letter says that letting everyone express personal views can discourage some people from voicing their concerns. I can picture that. Imagine seeing a fierce public reaction to an opinion and deciding to keep your similar opinion to yourself. Nobody has formally forbidden you to speak, but the reaction affects whether you do.
Still, calling that an inhibition of “free speech” makes me pause. Are we talking about permission to speak or about feeling able to speak without facing other people's reactions? Those aren't identical. If I post a forceful opinion online, other people also get to respond. Their response doesn't by itself mean that I was forbidden to post.
What we’re looking for
Now the question asks us to justify the apparently contradictory conclusion. We need to help the writer explain how unrestricted speech could inhibit speech. My first thought is to clarify that the writer means people's willingness to speak, not just whether they have permission. Let's see whether an answer makes that connection or otherwise shows how the chilling effect could happen.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
This gives a mechanism instead of a definition. People hear powerful views expressed freely, become afraid, and hold back their own concerns. Everyone can still have permission to speak while some people become less willing to use it. That explains how the two sides of the apparent contradiction can coexist and directly supports the writer's conclusion.
- B
More varied opinions and more offense don't yet establish less speech. People who are offended might respond loudly rather than remain silent. We need the connection to withholding concerns. A supplies it; B stops at the possibility of offense.
- C
This recommends restricting speech when it causes great pain. But the letter's conclusion concerns what unrestricted speech does, not what rules we should adopt. Even if we accepted C's recommendation, we would still need an explanation of how unrestricted speech discourages people from speaking.
- D
This analogy makes the conclusion sound implausible. Increasing a salary doesn't ordinarily make someone poorer, so comparing the letter's reasoning to that claim challenges it. Our task is to help explain the writer's conclusion, and D pushes against it.
- E
Here offended people speak up, and the exchange may resolve their conflict. That describes a response in which unrestricted speech produces further discussion. It doesn't give us the self-silencing response the writer needs to explain. Some people might still stay quiet, but E doesn't establish that.
More Paradox questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Paradox questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.