Critic: Although some people claim

Answer choices

1. A

   Weak Conclusion Match14% picked this

   In evaluating legislation that would impinge on a basic freedom, we should consider the consequences of

   This answer is pretty tempting. Are we evaluating legislation that would impinge on a basic freedom? Yeah, kinda. We're talking about legislation that would impinge on freedom of speech. (Is that a basic freedom? The passage never called it that, so that part of this answer is weird.) So according to this rule, we should consider the consequences of not passing the legislation limiting violence on TV. And the author did consider those consequences. She assessed that the damage of not passing the legislation was more than the damage to freedom of speech caused by passing the legislation. So it feels like both halves of this answer match the paragraph. But nothing in this answer matches the language of the conclusion: it is consistent to support this legislation and also freedom of speech.

   14%
2. B

   Correct57% picked this

   One can support freedom of speech while at the same time recognizing that it can sometimes be

   Why this is right

   This has the "1/2 Evidence, 1/2 Conclusion" language link we want to see in Principles. The author is arguing that "it is consistent to support freedom of speech while at the same time support this legislation that would undermine it". Why? Because the harm resulting from violent TV overrides the harm that the legislation would cause to freedom of speech. This answer has the structure, "One can do both A and B. They are compatible. They are consistent." That is the same as the structure of the Conclusion we're trying to support. And the language about "supporting freedom of speech while recognizing that it can be overridden by other interests" matches the evidence's discussion of the harm of violent tv overriding the harm to free speech.

   Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   57%
3. C

   Bad Evidence Match1% picked this

   When facing a choice between restricting freedom of speech or not, we must decide based on what would make the greatest

   We are indeed facing a choice of whether to restrict freedom of speech or not. But the evidence didn't consider what would make the greatest number of people the happiest. It considered whether the harm caused by the legislation would be outweighed by the harm prevented by the legislation.

   1%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion Match17% picked this

   If the exercise of a basic freedom leads to some harm, then the exercise of that

   The exercise of our basic freedom of speech could sometimes take the form of violent content on TV, which does lead to some harm. So according to this rule, violent TV is an exercise of freedom of speech that should be restricted. The conclusion, however, isn't trying to prove that violent TV should be restricted. It's trying to prove that it is coherent / non-contradictory to simultaneously want to restrict violent TV while also supporting freedom of speech. To put it another way, this answer would help justify one of the author's two beliefs. But the conclusion is not about justifying either belief. It's about trying to prove that these two beliefs are compatible with each other.

   17%
5. E

   Bad Conclusion Match11% picked this

   In some circumstances, we should tolerate regulations that impinge on a

   Like (D), this answer seems to reflect something this author would agree with, or something that would reinforce one of her beliefs. But it has nothing to do with justifying the language of the conclusion. The author thinks that in the circumstance of harmful violent TV, we should tolerate regulations (such as this legislation) that impinge on our basic freedom of speech. So this answer, like (D), agrees with the author's position of being pro-legislation. But the conclusion isn't saying, "we should approve of this legislation". It was saying, "It's not a contradiction to approve of this legislation while also supporting freedom of speech".

   11%