#20 - Policy Adviser: Freedom of speech is not only a basic

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Method of Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C)

The policy advisor argues that since free speech will enable people to better combat inane and dangerous ideas, and that nothing can be gained by forcing communication to be secret, his government ought to allow free speech.

As a side issue, the advisor's last sentence has a double meaning. The basic function is that it defeats the idea that something might be gained by suppressing free speech. Secondarily, there is a strong implication that the speaker is threatening that suppressing free speech will result in invalid and dangerous concepts circulating in secret, and that those concepts may cause trouble because no free discussion can combat them. That threat is one more reason for the government to allow free speech.

Answer choice (A) The policy advisor's reasoning is not circular, and this choice is incorrect. The advisor begins with basic premises and drives toward a conclusion; this argument consists of more than restatement. Furthermore, the advisor does not discuss the conditions under which free speech flourishes.

Answer choice (B) Actually, the advisor does not focus on basic rights, so this choice is incorrect. The advisor makes a pragmatic argument.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. The author briefly mentions basic human rights, a moral concept, and proceeds immediately to argue for the benefits of free speech, a self-interest concept.

Answer choice (D) The advisor's argument is based on the benefits of free speech, not on the difficulty of denying free speech. This choice is wrong, and is based on misinterpreting the advisor's implied threat, which is that suppressing free speech is dangerous, not that it is difficult.

Answer choice (E) The advisor does not describe an ideal situation. The implication of the advisor's argument is that he is willing to accept the fact that free speech will introduce some invalid or dangerous ideas, because free speech will also be a good way of eventually disposing of those ideas. That is not an ideal situation-- an ideal situation would not involve the occurrence of invalid or dangerous ideas. This choice is wrong. Furthermore, the advisor's implied threat indicates that the speaker is also interested in avoiding something bad, not that he is seeking an ideal situation.

[michmich51490]

On Question 7 or Lesson 7 of the LSAT course book the question claims that the senator's method of persuasion is best described by: a coupling of moral ideas with self-interest.
What is a self-interest concept and how is the senator acting self interested in promoting free speech?

[Jon Denning]

This is a tricky question that comes up a fair amount. I think self-interest here applies in two ways:

1. By advocating free speech, the "only rational policy for this government to adopt," the policy adviser is acting in her own self-interest as someone who advises the government. Sort of a professional self-interest. That is, if the policy adviser wants to do her job well then she would encourage the government to do what is best/rational. If free speech is the only rational option, then it serves the policy adviser in a professional sense for the government to adopt that policy. This could also be thought to apply to the policy adviser as PART OF the government, in that she would want the people she works for to do that which is best.

2. Free speech as the government's adopted policy would obviously then affect the citizenry being governed, a group to which the policy adviser belongs. So recommending free speech would presumably result in the policy adviser receiving all of the benefits--good ideas flourishing, silly proposals dismissed, etc.--that she associates with free speech.

So both professionally and personally it is reasonable to think that the policy adviser stands to benefit from the recommendation given, meaning that self-interest could certainly be thought to play a part in her recommendation.

I hope this helps!

Jon

[Sdaoud17]

I totally understand how is answer C is correct however, I was wondering about the answer explanation itself online. when you said : "Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. The author briefly mentions basic human rights, a moral concept, and proceeds immediately to argue for the benefits of free speech, a self-interest concept."

Is the policy advisor talking using the self-interset concept for the citizens or for the government , why not the other ? Because I can see how its for both.

Thank you

[Ron Gore]

Thank you for your question, Sdaoud17.

I think your instinct that the self-interest concept applies to both the citizens and the government is correct.

It doesn't appear from the stimulus that the policy adviser makes any distinction between what benefits the citizenry and what benefits the government. Ultimately, and accepting the adviser's labels, it is in the best interests of both the citizenry and the government to have good ideas flourish, to recognize silly proposals as such, and to respond by rational argument to dangerous ideas. While the adviser recognizes that the government may have some ability to suppress free speech, the adviser makes clear it would be irrational for the government to do so.

Hope that helps.

Ron

[GLMDYP]

Hi Powerscore!
Just how do we define "moral ideas with self-interest" here? From my standpoint, I cannot see it at all!
Thanks!

[David Boyle]

Hi Powerscore!
Just how do we define "moral ideas with self-interest" here? From my standpoint, I cannot see it at all!
Thanks!

Hello,

The "moral ideas" are the "basic human right", and the [enlightened] "self-interest" is the "rational policy" which lets people judge ideas as good or bad.

David

[kim4956]

I got this question wrong and understand why my answer choice was incorrect. But I'm not clear as to why choice (C) is the correct answer. The second part of the answer, "self-interest," is what is tripping my comprehension. Are they saying that the policy advisor is advocating free speech out of selfish motivations? If that's the case, I'm not understanding/seeing that very clearly, except the last sentence in the stimulus... Thanks!

[Laura Carrier]

Hi Kim,

You pose an excellent question! Unfortunately, this is one of those questions in which eliminating the answer choices that can’t possibly be right is probably the easiest way to identify the correct answer choice as the only one that can’t be definitively ruled out.

But although (C) does not immediately leap out as an accurate description of the policy adviser’s method, it is actually quite consistent with the way the first sentence (and conclusion) frames the argument:

“Freedom of speech is not only a basic human right; it is also the only rational policy for this government to adopt.”

Here we are being asked to believe two things about freedom of speech: That it is both a basic human right (which can be equated with the language used to describe a moral ideal) and also the only rational policy (which can be equated with the language of rational self-interest).

The policy adviser seems to think that the fact that freedom of speech is a basic human (moral) right needs no argument and is something that can be taken for granted, and thus focuses the rest of the argument on providing evidence for the contrasting claim that it is also rational (i.e., consistent with self-interest).

The premises inform us of three benefits of freedom of speech, and then go on to say that “[n]othing is ever gained” by restricting freedom of speech. That last sentence in particular suggests that the meat of the argument is an appeal to self-interest, since in addition to the evidence provided by sentence two of the benefits of allowing freedom of speech, it specifies that there are no benefits to restricting it, which is consistent with what could be described as a self-interested weighing of benefits and costs without regard to the previously mentioned moral weight of freedom of speech as a basic human right.

As a result, the policy adviser can conclude that freedom of speech is not simply a moral ideal of respecting basic human rights, but also the only rational policy because it offers so many benefits and doesn't come at a cost.

I hope thinking about it this way makes answer choice (C) look more reasonable to you!
Laura

[avengingangel]

wow. this question is so so horrible and i am SO glad that i am encountering it now, BEFORE i take the test, so i can better learn & become familiar with the totally twisted and bizarre ways the lsat writers think !!!!!

i appreciate, as someone pointed out, that this answer is "tricky" and that eliminating the other wrong answers might just be the method you have to apply here. BUT -- rational = self-interested ??? In my understanding of what those 2 concepts mean, that association is such a stretch to the point where it's laughable (i'm laughing to keep from crying ). i mean, at this point, ok, i "get" it, and i won't spend time here trying to dispute all the reasons why that makes no sense. i don't write the test (yet), they do. but, one remaining & related question I do have, is according to JD's explanation from 2011, it would seem that anything that the government recommends (whether it be an adoption of policy, etc.) would then then be acting in self-interest, yes? is that true? assuming, of course, that the government is acting on behalf of the good of the people, as it's intended (lol).

any further clarity would help! thanks.