#12 - Politician: It is wrong for the government to restrict

[Steve Stein]

Hi Ellen,

I think the test makers often look to take advantage of the inclination to be too formulaic in our approach to these--details in many questions seem designed to elude simple diagramming.

When the author says that to offend is not to cause harm, that's just saying that they are not the same thing. If you want to diagram it, you could do it as follows:

offend harm

In other words, there are some offensive things/acts that are not harmful.

As for publishing, the author provides that it is a liberty, so if it is wrong to restrict liberties, that would include publishing. For clarity, here is the right answer, further expanded upon:

merely offensive publication Harm Ok to restrict liberty

If a publication is just offensive, then it's NOT harmful, so it's NOT ok to restrict the liberty of publishing it.

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[ellenb]

Why did you put

offend some not harm where it should be offend-->not harm ?

or was it because not all means some are not

and in this case not all things that cause harm are offensive would be, thus it would be, some things that are offensive are not harmful?

Thanks

Ellen

[Steve Stein]

Hi Ellen,

Thanks for your response.

I didn't put Offend Harm, because that would suggest that if something is offensive, it cannot be harmful.

Instead, we just know that to offend is not necessarily to harm. Something that is "only offensive" is not harmful:

Only offensive NOT harmful Not right to restrict liberties.

I hope that helps--let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[ellenb]

It does not make sense, if we are doing this example for this homework:

To offend is not to cause harm, I understand that

offend-->not cause harm, (thus, if for example Michael offends someone they do not cause harm to that person)

Thus, it does not make sense that you are saying to offend is not necessarily to cause harm. It is changing the words that were stated in the stimulus.

Thanks Steve for keeping up with these follow-up questions. Someone told me that confusion is part of learning and I guess now I am experiencing it.

Thanks

Ellen

[Steve Stein]

Hi Ellen,

Thanks for your response. What makes this tricky is the unique phrasing.

"To offend is not to cause harm."

This is like "To be rich is not to be happy."

We can't diagram this as rich unhappy because that would mean that all rich people are unhappy, which is not the intent of the statement.

Instead, the statement just means that being rich doesn't guarantee happiness (if you're rich, you're not necessarily happy).

Similarly, "To offend is not to cause harm" just means that offensiveness is not necessarily harmful--not that offensive things are guaranteed not to harm.

I hope that's helpful! Please let me know--thanks!

~Steve

[ellenb]

So,

only offensive-->not harmful will be ok

compared

offensive-->not harm (is not ok?)

Is it because you are making one an adjective and the other a noun (harmful vs. harm)?
I am a bit confused, since I tend to be a bit formulaic, and especially for this lesson. It is I am not sure why you said offensive some not harm and later you say only offensive-->not harmful.


Please let me know thanks

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Ellen,

The key difference between those statements is not the noun/adjective distinction. It's the "ONLY" in the first statement. Steve is saying that if something is ONLY offensive, that means it is not harmful. Something could be both offensive and harmful but if it is ONLY offensive, then it can't be harmful as well.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[ellenb]

So, if I had, if I am only rich than I am not necessarily happy, is different than
if I am rich I am happy? we would diagram these statements differently?

Thanks

Ellen

[Steve Stein]

Hi Ellen,

Those statements are very different.

i) If I am rich I am happy: rich happy

ii) If I am rich I am not necessarily happy: in other words, wealth does not guarantee happiness.

It can be tempting to try to diagram everything, but again, the test makers take advantage of that inclination.

You will be better off if you can start to look at the logic behind this one; being too formulaic can lead you to "force" a diagram that is not really legitimate. That, I suspect, is the idea behind clever incorrect answer choice (A).

I hope that's helpful--let me know.

Thanks!

~Steve

[ellenb]

Thanks Steve, so what is the take-away lesson for this question? Can you maybe give another example which is similar to the idea above, that seems similar enough to a statement, but it is not in fact, which uses the same trick that they used in here.


Thanks

Ellen