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

[AthenaDalton]

Hi Jessica,

The difference is that answer choice (C) provides self-interest as a justification for supporting free speech rights, while answer choice (B) does not.

Answer choice (B) says that free speech should be allowed because it's the right thing to do: it's a basic human right, and should be supported "for its own sake." The phrase "own sake" refers not to the government's interest, but to supporting free speech simply because it's the right thing to do. If something is done "for its own sake," it's done for the value of the action itself and not for any advantage if will bring.

Answer choice (C) discusses both moral ideals (respecting basic rights) as well as self-interest. The stimulus discusses a self-interested benefit that the government will reap if it promotes free speech: specifically, help from the citizenry in sorting the good policy ideas from the bad ones.

The element of self-interest is the key difference here. (C) mentions self interest; (B) does not.

The argument itself uses both moral persuasion (free speech is a basic human right) and self-interest (the government will make better policies if free speech is permitted) to make its case. Therefore (C) is the better answer.

I hope this makes sense. Good luck!

[lunsandy]

Hi Powerscore,

To follow up on what @AlthenaDalton was saying would "for its own sake" be referential phrasing to the sake of citizens not necessary for the sake of policy adviser? So in other words, advocating respect for basic rights of citizens for its own sake is saying "advocating respect for basic rights of citizens so they themselves can have basic rights/ benefit from the basic rights." Whereas, C) is more definitive with self-interest that refers directly to the self interest of the policy adviser to have the policy go through?

Also, could we say that B) advocating RESPECT for basic rights- nothing in the premise says about respecting human rights just says freedom of speech IS a basic human right. We aren't discussing the respectability of basic human rights.

[Eric Ockert]

I wouldn't recommend reading into answer choice (B) too much more than what Athena's breakdown of that answer has already done (mainly because it can easily overcomplicate this problem). However, just to do so a little bit...

The author here says the government policy should be to allow freedom of speech. This could be translated as "respecting the right of free speech." So, even though they never explicitly used the word "respect", they have spoken in a logically equivalent manner. Therefore, that aspect of the language in answer (B) is probably OK.

The problem with answer choice (B) is all about the "for its own sake" language. I think it would be accurate to say that the author is advocating respect for at least one basic human right. But the author argues that the government should do that because it is in their best interest, NOT because it is the right thing to do. In other words, not "for its own sake" but because of "self-interest."

Hope that helps!

[lsatworld]

Hi Powerscore,

What's the structure of the argument?

Are there two conclusions? (1) "It is also the only rational policy" and (2)"Nothing is ever gained by forcing citizens to disseminate their thoughts in secret."

Or is the conclusion just one of the two?

Thanks!

[Adam Tyson]

The conclusion is that free speech is the only rational policy, lsatworld. The claim that nothing is gained by forcing citizens to keep secrets is a premise that supports that claim by showing that there is no benefit to the opposite policy and that it is thus not rational.

To confirm this, look for some premise that supports the claim in the last sentence. Only if you can find evidence used to support that claim could it be properly called a conclusion. While there is evidence that free speech has benefits, no evidence is given to support the claim that the opposite is without benefits. Thus, that claim cannot be viewed in this argument as a conclusion.

[lsatworld]

Thank you very much!

[tetsuya0129]

The conclusion is that free speech is the only rational policy, lsatworld. The claim that nothing is gained by forcing citizens to keep secrets is a premise that supports that claim by showing that there is no benefit to the opposite policy and that it is thus not rational.

Hi Tyson and Powerscore Staff,

This is a very intriguing question. I like the detailed explanations from you.

Having read all the foregoing replies, I am somewhat confused here. In light of the conclusion, "moral ideals" in (C), neither a premise nor a conclusion, cannot be the Policy Advisor's method of reasoning.

I am pondering whether the first premise "when ideas are openly aired...." is deemed by LSAC as "moral ideals." Since the definition of moral basically means a criterion of good and bad, moral ideal could potentially be understood as "an ideal good situation."

I am not sure whether my attempt makes sense. I would gratefully appreciate your insights regarding my confusion and attempt.

Thanks,
Leon

[Robert Carroll]

Leon,

But the policy adviser does use moral ideas to help bolster the argument. The first sentence contains a premise and the conclusion - as Adam pointed out in the post you quote, the conclusion is the second half of the first sentence. The argument makes much of the consequentialist reasons for allowing freedom of speech, and devotes no real attention to the "moral ideal" part except mentioning that freedom of speech is a basic human right. But it still does present that information about human rights to help the argument. That's enough to make it a premise. Rephrase the argument in simplistic terms: "Not only is free speech a human right, but it's a good policy for the government because it helps keep the government around." There are two general reasons for allowing free speech - the human right reason and the interest in preserving the government reason.

Looking at the premise that talks about what happens "when ideas are openly aired," it looks as if all the consequences of openly airing ideas are good for the government. So all those ideas fall under the "self-interest" part of answer choice (C). It's necessary to recognize that that's NOT the "first premise" at all, and that the very first sentence already gives some reason for allowing free speech.

Robert Carroll

[marilati]

Hi, I'm having a hard time with this question. I narrowed it down to C and E and didn't like either of them. I chose E because it felt more true than C. The author says, "When ideas are openly aired, good ideas flourish, silly proposals are easily recognized as such, and dangerous ideas can be responded to by rational argument," which certainly feels like an ideal scenario that's not realistic. So while I'm not entirely clear on the rational=self-interest explanations above, I'm also not sure why E is wrong. I'm hoping that if I see that, I'd be able to narrow it down to C, the only possible answer left.

[Beatrice Brown]

Hi Marilati! This is definitely a really tricky question.

Remember that Method of Reasoning questions are a type of Must Be True question. So for an answer choice to be correct, it must pass the Fact Test: if the method described in the answer choice does not describe something that actually occurs in the stimulus, then this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (E) is incorrect because the policy advisor does not argue for his conclusion by saying that it cannot realistically be achieved; he never discusses whether there are practical issues preventing the implementation of this policy. Furthermore, the advisor never states that this is an ideal situation. Instead, he recognizes that free speech (the policy he is advocating for) may also have some bad results, like dangerous ideas being voiced. If advancing a free speech policy was an ideal situation, there would not be any negative consequences to adopting the policy. The advisor also seems to acknowledge that the situation is not ideal by claiming that it is the only rational policy for them to adopt; a rational policy need not be ideal, but rather, just the best option available.

Be careful to not read the stimulus with your own interpretation/opinion of the evidence offered. The ideas he advances are definitely lofty, but that does not mean that the advisor is advancing his argument by explaining an ideal situation that he believes cannot be achieved.

In terms of answer choice (C), a lot of the other responses have done a great job pointing out how the stimulus utilizes self-interest to advance the argument, but to reiterate: by advocating for the "only rational policy," the advisor is arguing from a place of professional self-interest. Since he works for the government, he is trying to advance an argument that will most benefit the government. In this case, the advisor is saying that promoting free speech is the only rational policy, as it is one that most benefits the government since it allows good ideas to be discussed and dangerous ideas to be refuted.

Finally, as you mentioned, process of elimination is unfortunately likely to be the best tactic on this question since none of the answer choices immediately jump out as correct. Instead, I would focus on being able to point to a precise reason why the four other answer choices are wrong (such as by pointing out that the method described doesn't actually happen in the argument).

I hope this helps, and let me know if you need further clarification!