PrepTest 130, Section 1, Question 21
Columnist: Although there is and should be complete(25 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(11 more words not shown)
- AThe government should(25 more words not shown)
- BPeople who produce(22 more words not shown)
- CThere should be(22 more words not shown)
- DThe public has(27 more words not shown)
- EOne who advocates(20 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Having the freedom to express something doesn't automatically make that expression morally acceptable. The columnist can defend complete freedom while still objecting to someone making money by exploiting tastes the columnist regards as depraved.
For example, someone could defend the legal right to produce adult entertainment while morally objecting to particular exploitative material. We don't have to share that person's moral assessment to understand the distinction between allowing expression and approving of it.
What we’re looking for
The claim is limited: freedom doesn't establish that nothing is wrong. It isn't a claim that every exercise of that freedom is bad. For the principle-application question, look for a judgment that keeps both parts—the freedom to produce the material and the possibility of moral criticism.
Working the answers
- A
The condition at the end takes away the complete freedom the columnist defends. Artists would have the right to create a work only if nobody considered it depraved. The columnist's distinction allows the right to remain even when the work attracts that criticism.
- B
This looks promising at first because it preserves freedom and reminds producers that they can choose differently. But freedom to refrain is still a claim about available choices. It doesn't make the columnist's point that an action can be permitted without being morally acceptable. We need that moral distinction, not just a second freedom.
- CCorrect
No laws should restrict which books are published, but that legal freedom doesn't itself establish the moral acceptability of pandering to depraved tastes. Read “not thereby morally acceptable” carefully: it means not made morally acceptable by that fact alone. It doesn't say that freedom of publication somehow proves the books immoral. That precise distinction matches the columnist and makes C a closer fit than B.
- D
Allowing people to buy recordings while letting the government restrict their production doesn't preserve complete freedom of expression. The columnist doesn't use moral disapproval to authorize a government limit of this kind.
- E
Defending someone's freedom to speak doesn't require withholding criticism of what the person says. That is exactly the separation the columnist makes: one can support the freedom and still judge a use of it objectionable.
More Must Be True questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Must Be True questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.