PrepTest 134, Section 1, Question 12
The government is being urged to prevent organizations(84 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AThe government should(18 more words not shown)
- BThe government ought(10 more words not shown)
- COne ought to(15 more words not shown)
- DThe government ought(18 more words not shown)
- EOne ought to(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Even if the dietary advice could be harmful, does that give the government a reason to silence the people offering it?
That's the question the author wants us to separate from whether the advice is good. The proposed restriction concerns advocacy: organizations telling people to eat large portions of uncooked meat. It isn't simply a rule about what food people may eat.
The author compares this with political speech. A political group might advocate policies that could harm some people, yet the author says that danger alone wouldn't justify silencing it. The proposed conclusion carries the same protection over to nutritional opinions.
What we’re looking for
Does the comparison hold? Someone could argue that health recommendations call for different treatment. We shouldn't simply assume that a rule accepted for political discussion applies to every other subject. To strengthen the argument, I'd want a principle covering the common feature: possible harm from spreading an opinion isn't, by itself, enough to justify silencing that opinion.
Working the answers
- A
How many people believe the position is beneficial? We aren't told. The author's defense doesn't depend on the dietary advice being popular. A protects opinions satisfying a condition we have no reason to think these nutrition groups meet, so it doesn't justify applying the political comparison here.
- B
This leaves the disputed question unanswered. Is silencing the groups in society's best interest, or is allowing the discussion better? The argument hasn't resolved that broader balance. A command to do whatever is best won't tell us which action to take without an account of what is best in this situation.
- C
This tells advocates when they should promote a position. The conclusion concerns when the government should silence them. Even if advocates should sincerely believe their advice is true or beneficial, we still need a rule explaining the government's response to potentially harmful advocacy.
- DCorrect
This rule applies to opinions generally, not only political opinions. It says potential harm from spreading an opinion is not, on its own, sufficient grounds for silencing it. That supports treating the nutrition groups like the political groups: citing possible harm from their advice doesn't by itself justify suppressing their speech.
The word “merely” matters. D doesn't say the government can never silence any opinion under any circumstances. It rejects the particular justification offered here, which is all this argument needs.
- E
This tells people to urge only justified government action. But whether silencing these groups is justified is precisely what we're trying to decide. E supplies no basis for that decision. It addresses the people making the request without establishing the requested action's status.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.