#3 - Politician: The legal right to free speech does not

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Main Point. The correct answer choice is (A).

The question stem asks us to find what the politician is arguing. This means that we are being asked to determine the politician's main point or main conclusion. The main point of an argument is whatever the author is trying to convince us of. The author must give us evidence to try to support the main point. In this case, the main point is the last sentence, that the criminalization of some forms of speech is justified because they likely lead to serious harm.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer. This answer choice matches our prephrase and best describes the author's main point.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice is too strong. The author does not say that it's necessary to know for certain that a form of speech would lead directly to serious harm in order to restrict it.

Answer choice (C): This is a shell game. The author never says that restricting speech leads to harm. The main point is that it's justified to prohibit speech that is likely to lead to harm.

Answer choice (D): The author never states that any form of speech may lead directly to serious harm. Again, this is a shell game that is switching around some elements from the stimulus into an unsupported statement.

Answer choice (E): The author states that criminalization of all the forms of speech mentioned is justified and does not specify that just one out of the several is justified.

[chian9010]

Hi, I have a question about answer B.

Is it wrong because "likely to lead directly to serious harm" is a sufficient condition rather than necessary condition?

The way I interpret the stimulus is that:

If a form of speech is likely to lead directly to serious harm, the criminalization of the form of speech is justified.
"likely to lead directly to serious harm" -> the criminalization of the form of speech is justified.

However, same as question 2 answer choice C in the previous section (section 2, preptest 81), I feel like both questions we can diagram the sufficient/necessary condition to determine the best answer. However, is there any quick way to get the correct answer instead of determine/diagram the sufficient/necessary condition? Because sometime I feel it is not that obvious in the stimulus that which one is sufficient or necessary.

[Brook Miscoski]

Chian, you are on the right track.

The last sentence is the politician's conclusion. He argues that harm justifies prohibiting speech. Thus, harm is a sufficient condition.

Answer choice (A), the credited response, presents harm as the sufficient condition.
Answer choice (B) is a Mistaken Reversal and should be eliminated.

You are correct that, loosely, the same explanation applies for the choice between (B) and (C) on that other question. In that question, humor was proposed as helpful, not as a necessary or sufficient condition.

My advice is that you need to familiarize yourself with the typical sufficiency and necessity indicators. Since you say you are having trouble telling what is the sufficient or necessary condition from your read of the stimulus, trying to find a short cut is the wrong solution. You basically need to knuckle down on this and work hard, and diagramming will help you to focus.

[juandresmc]

Hi PS!

Even though I got this question right, I am not sure what type of question it is. Is it a Method of Reasoning question?

Thank you very much.

Best regards,

Andrés

[KelseyWoods]

Hi Andrés!

This is a Main Point question. We're being asked what the politician argues, meaning what is the main point or main conclusion that he is trying to convince us of.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey