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

[Steve Stein]

You got it!

~Steve

[Nadia0702]

Hi PowerScore,

Some points of clarification on this question please

Right answer A is the contrapositve of the conditional statement given in the stimulus, correct?

On answer E - If the word "serious" had not been included there, would this answer be a Restatement of the conditional statement given in the stimulus?

In other words, does the word "serious" make E an "exaggerated" answer?

Thank you!

[Steve Stein]

Hi Nadia,

Thanks for your follow-up. The first sentence provides that it is wrong to restrict liberty, except perhaps when failing to do so would allow harm. In other words, if it is not wrong to restrict liberty, we know that failing to do so would allow harm:

Wrong to restrict liberty failing to restrict would allow for harm

...the contrapositive of the above statement provides that if failing to restrict something would not allow for harm, it would be wrong to restrict liberty:

failing to restrict would allow for harm Wrong to restrict liberty

Choice (A) works with the statement above for confirmation: if a publication is only offensive, then failing to restrict it would not allow for harm, so it would be wrong to restrict liberty in that scenario:

merely offensive failing to restrict would allow for harm Wrong to restrict liberty

Answer choice (E) can be ruled out, because, as you point out, "serious" is not supported by the stimulus.

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

~Steve

[ellenb]

Dear Powerscore,

For this question, I diagrammed

restrict liberty ok==> when individuals cause harm

(CP: individuals not cause harm-->not restrict liberty)

Next statements: Publishing-->Liberty

Offend==> not cause harm

(we can connect: offend-->not cause harm-->not restrict liberty)

However, how did they connect publishing and offensive, where is the link for us to conclude that publishing-->offend ? in order to get to the answer A we would need that.


Also, why C is wrong, I read the explanations. but I am a bit confused. Originally when I read it I thought it is wrong because it is connecting the terms that were not connected in the stimulus. However, in the explanations it says that it is a contradiction. Please let me know how it is a contradiction.

Thanks in advance!

Regards

Ellen

[Steve Stein]

Hi Ellen,

In that one, the first sentence provides that it is wrong to restrict liberty, except perhaps when failing to do so would allow harm. In other words, if it is not wrong to restrict liberty, we know that failing to do so would allow harm:

Wrong to restrict liberty failing to restrict would allow for harm

...the contrapositive of the above statement provides that if failing to restrict something would not allow for harm, it would be wrong to restrict liberty:

failing to restrict would allow for harm Wrong to restrict liberty

Choice (A) works with the statement above for confirmation: if a publication is only offensive, then failing to restrict it would not allow for harm, so it would be wrong to restrict liberty in that scenario:

merely offensive failing to restrict would allow for harm Wrong to restrict liberty.

Answer choice (C) makes the assertion that restricting liberty is not harmful. This choice is not supported by the stimulus, as the author does not comment on whether government restriction of liberty is harmful or offensive--just that it is wrong except in limited cases.

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

~Steve

[ellenb]

Thanks,

However, I am not seeing how publishing and being offensive is connected?
It just says
"to publish something is a liberty, and to offend is not to cause harm"

How do I know that publishing is offensive?

Thanks

Ellen

[Steve Stein]

Hi Ellen,

Thanks for your question. In that one, Answer choice (A) deals specifically with the case of literature that is only offensive.

The stimulus, as you point out, provides that if something is only offensive, it does not cause harm. The stimulus also establishes that if publication of literature (which is a liberty, as you said) would not lead to harm, then that liberty should not be restricted:

Literature that is only offensive harm wrong to restrict liberty.

This is a tough one, so let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[ellenb]

Bingo!

Steve, I think I am close to getting it, please let me know if my diagram makes sense.

So, the way that I diagrammed the statement and the answer:

Restrict liberty Ok--->cause harm

Publishing = liberty

Offend=not cause harm
Thus,

ok To restrict publishing (which is a liberty)-->not offensive (not cause harm)

CP: offensive --> not ok to restrict publishing (the answer)

Please let me know whether it makes sense.

thanks

Ellen

[Steve Stein]

Hey Ellen,

You basically have it; as you point out: if restricting liberty is ok harm

And the contrapositive:

if no harm, its not ok to restrict liberty: Harm OK to restrict liberty

Further, something that is just offensive is not harmful: just offensive harm

Answer choice (A) deals with a publication that is merely offensive:

merely offensive publication Harm Ok to restrict liberty


Let me know whether that's clear--thanks!

~Steve

[ellenb]

Thanks, so when we have,

Offend is not to cause harm

Is that a conditional statement or do I have to equal it to each other:

Offend-->Not to Cause Harm
or
Offend=not to cause harm?


Same is with publishing is a liberty, so would it be
publish=liberty or Publishing-->Liberty ?

Because in the answer it has publishing and in your final diagram, if you pay close attention you just have not ok to restrict liberty, however, you did not mention anything about the relationship between publishing and liberty.

Sorry, I am being too detailed, but I want to know how to properly diagram statements like the ones above when I encounter them in the future.

Thanks in advance!

Ellen