#20- Critic: Although some people claim it is inconsistent

[sarae]

I was between answers B and D for this one, but I picked D. I could see why B might be the better answer but why is D incorrect? Is it because the stimulus is talking about supporting the freedom and at the same time wanting to restrict it rather than simply restricting a freedom?

[Steve Stein]

Hi sarae,

In that one, the author's argument is that it is alright to limit TV violence based not on the mere existence of some harm, but rather it is based on the fact that the harm outweighs the decrease in freedom.

I hope this is helpful--please let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[sarae]

got it! thanks!

[ShannonOh22]

Hi guys,

Can you please help me out by explaining why A and E are wrong on this question?

Answer choice (A) brings up the consequences of not passing the legislation restricting violence on TV, which I read to be almost exactly what the author says at the end of the stimulus - "we can limit TV program content because the damage done...is more harmful than the decrease in freedom of speech"

And for (E) "in some circumstances, we should tolerate regulations that impinge on a basic freedom" - this also seems to apply pretty well to the stimulus.

I understand B being correct, but I don't understand how it is a better answer than A or E. Any help/guidance is appreciated!

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Shannon!

Remember to focus on the conclusion that we are trying to strengthen here. The conclusion is that first sentence, that is it not inconsistent to support freedom of speech and also support legislation limiting the amount of violence in TV programs. We need a principle that will strengthen that conclusion.

Answer choice (A) does not strengthen the conclusion because it does not deal with whether or not one can support freedom of speech while also supporting legislation that may impinge on that right. It says that when evaluating legislation we should consider the consequences of not passing the legislation, but it gives us nothing to strengthen the idea that we could support both the legislation and the basic freedom. It also doesn't tell us what consequences of not passing the legislation would outweigh impinging on a basic freedom (so we are not sure if it applies to the situation in our stimulus).

Answer choice (E) also does not strengthen the conclusion because it does not deal with whether or not one can support freedom of speech while also supporting legislation that may impinge on that right. It just says that we should tolerate regulations that impinge on basic freedoms in some circumstances but it does not tell us which circumstances those are (so we are not sure if it applies to the situation in our stimulus) and again it says nothing about our conclusion.

Answer choice (B) is the only principle that directly addresses that conclusion and so it is the only answer choice that strengthens.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[ashpine17]

i see comments stating that "some" in E is problematic, but the correct answer B also contains "sometimes" so I don't see how this one word is enough to be a problem in this case.

[Robert Carroll]

ashpine17,

An additional problem with answer choice (E) is that the stimulus doesn't want to tolerate freedom-restricting regulations, but support such legislation. Tolerance is not support, so answer choice (E) does nothing whatsoever to help the stimulus.

Robert Carroll

[dshen123]

I thought A is correct because not passing legislation (one of them here because it's singular in A) to limit the amount of TV violence would be outweighed by passing both legislations. Thus, it's not inconsistent with the conclusion...

[Adam Tyson]

The conclusion is that you can support freedom of speech while also supporting some restrictions on that freedom, and that doing so isn't a contradiction. To strengthen that, we need a rule that tells us that these two positions are not necessarily contradictory.

Answer A says there are multiple considerations, but that doesn't mean there isn't a contradiction between these two positions. If you consider the pros and cons of restricting some freedoms, and decide to restrict the freedoms, then it could be said that you don't truly support that freedom. Claiming that you do would be inconsistent with imposing those restrictions. That's not to say you would be wrong; it just means that the two ideas don't go together. Answer A is saying that you can choose to restrict that freedom, but it isn't saying that you can make that choice and still support the freedom.

Answer B very explicitly tells us that the two ideas are not in conflict. You can support freedom of speech and also support certain exceptions. If you can do both, then there is not a conflict. That's the general rule we're looking for, which helps the argument because it's what the argument is based on.