#17 – Principle: The government should not prevent someone

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen, Principle. The correct answer choice is (B).

Answer choice (A):

Answer choice (B): This is the correct answer choice.

Answer choice (C):

Answer choice (D):

Answer choice (E):

This explanation is still in progress. Please post any questions below!

[tld5061]

I just want to make sure I'm thinking about this the correct way. I understand the principle to mean that gov't should only prevent someone from expressing true belief if it would be harmful to ppl. Since they were wrong in the application, it must mean it wasn't harmful to people for Calista to express. And since the studies in the answer choice would benefit people they aren't harmful.

[Jonathan Evans]

Hi, TLD5061,

Thanks for the question. You appear to have a pretty good grasp of the mechanics of this argument. In order to ensure clarity, let's address each part of your analysis.

I understand the principle to mean that gov't should only prevent someone from expressing true belief if it would be harmful to ppl.

This analysis is correct. For the government to be justified in restricting someone from expressing a true belief it is necessary that the expression of this belief would be harmful to people generally. I just wanted to be crystal clear about the necessary condition here.

Since they were wrong in the application, it must mean it wasn't harmful to people for Calista to express.

Your analysis here is in keeping with the thrust of the argument; however, strictly speaking, it would be possible for Calista's statement to be harmful to people generally AND for it likewise to be true that the government was wrong to censor her.

In this case, according to the principle, the government is justified in censoring a true belief only if the expression of this belief would be harmful to people generally. However, this statement is not equivalent to the statement that *if the government is not justified in censoring a true belief than the expression of this belief is not harmful. Let's look at these symbolically. First the principle:

• Government Justified in Censoring True Belief Expression of True Belief Harmful
• Contrapositive: Expression of True Belief NOT Harmful Government NOT Justified in Censoring True Belief

Note that "Government NOT Justified in Censoring True Belief" is the necessary condition of the contrapositive. If we know that the Expression of True Belief NOT Harmful, then we know Government NOT Justified in Censoring True Belief.

However, the fact that Government NOT Justified in Censoring True Belief is not in and of itself sufficient to know that Expression of True Belief NOT Harmful.

This conditional distinction doesn't really mess anything up here, but for the sake of clarity and practice, make a note of it.

And since the studies in the answer choice would benefit people they aren't harmful.

Yes, this is absolutely correct. In the plain meaning of "benefit people to know this" we can infer that such knowledge would not be "harmful to people generally."

Does this explanation help?

[lunsandy]

Hi Powerscore,

I understand why B is the correct answer because it provides the missing sufficient assumption (would benefit people to know this) to make the necessary true (wrong to prevent Calista from expressing true belief).

Upon review, I am looking at D and want to know if i'm getting rid of it for the right reason - is it incorrect because /PCD Is is Usually Harmful to People Strong Evidence Link Produce and Disease. I thought that strong evidence product and disease was the same as true belief? Or is that different because one is a belief and one is a fact? Would D be correct if it said /PCD Harmful to People Wrong to prevent Publicly Expressing Belief?

Thanks a lot!

[Adam Tyson]

Hey there lunsandy, let me see if I can help clarify. I'm not sure what your abbreviation PCD is representing - maybe "product causes disease?" Regardless, answer D does not strengthen the argument and might actually weaken it. If suggesting that something causes disease could be harmful, then perhaps what she wanted to do would be harmful, and the government therefore not wrong to prevent her from expressing it? The problem is that we have no idea about whether there is strong evidence - or any evidence, for that matter - supporting her belief. Belief itself isn't evidence.

Even if she had evidence, and we added answer D to the mix, that wouldn't tell us that the government was wrong to restrict her. If answer D is correct, an absence of evidence guarantees harm in a case like this, but don't make a mistaken reversal and assume that the presence of evidence - even strong evidence - removes that harm.

So, back to your question, belief - even strong belief - is not evidence. Don't mix those up!