Social critic: The whole debate

Answer choices

1. A

   Unsupported2% picked this

   If rock music that contains violent lyrics is morally wrong, then it

   The critic explicitly says legal rights and moral judgments are different — "Legally, there is very little that may not be said. But not everything that may legally be said ought to be said." That's the opposite of saying moral wrongness implies illegality. (A) collapses the distinction the critic insists on.

   2%
2. B

   Unsupported2% picked this

   The law should be changed so that the government is mandated to censor rock music

   The critic isn't calling for government action. The whole opening move ("the debate over the legal right ... misses the point") signals the critic isn't arguing about laws or government intervention. The point is about what musicians ought to do voluntarily, not about state-imposed censorship.

   2%
3. C

   Contradicts13% picked this

   Violent rock song lyrics do not incite violence, they merely reflect the

   The critic explicitly says words "have the power to change the way we see and the way we act" — i.e., words can be a cause, not just a reflection. (C) says the opposite: violent lyrics merely reflect and don't incite. That contradicts the passage.

   13%
4. D

   Correct81% picked this

   If rock musicians voluntarily censor their violent lyrics, this may help to reduce

   Why this is right

   This is the most directly supported inference. The critic says (1) the legal route isn't the answer (so we're looking at voluntary action), (2) not everything legally allowed ought to be said, and (3) words can change how people see and act. Combine those: musicians voluntarily restraining their violent lyrics — i.e., voluntary self-censorship — may change how people see and act, which could in turn help reduce violence. The cautious "may" matches the conservative tone of the inference.

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

   81%
5. E

   Too Strong2% picked this

   Stopping the production of rock music that contains violent lyrics would eliminate much of the

   "Eliminate much of the violence" is a far stronger claim than the critic supports. The critic says words can change how we see and act — that's a real but modest causal claim. Going from "words affect behavior" to "stopping violent lyrics would eliminate much of the violence in society" is a huge leap. The critic doesn't come close to that strong a forecast.

   2%