Editorial: A recently passed law

Answer choices

1. A

   Not an Objection8% picked this

   the law may have other purposes in addition to

   If this answer developed its idea a little better, it could work: maybe the legislators are aware of the dangerous historical precedent of silencing dissenters but wrote the law anyway because its positives would outweigh that negative. However, this answer doesn't give us that there are "other purposes that would outweigh the bad" or that "the legislators are aware of the bad". For all we know, these other purposes are ALSO bad things.

   8%
2. B

   Weaker Than the Correct Answer13% picked this

   certain freedoms might sometimes need to be limited in order to ensure the protection of

   This is closer to what (A) was trying to be: maybe there are complex tradeoffs. Maybe the lawmakers know that silencing dissenters is a move towards authoritarianism, but the tradeoffs in this case are worth it. The problem, though, is that this answer isn't specifically about this law, and it doesn't give us any hint that the lawmakers passing the law are aware of the historical danger of silencing dissent.

   13%
3. C

   Not an Objection Tendency vs. Absolute15% picked this

   some historical accounts report that legal restrictions on freedom of speech have occasionally undermined the

   Because of how weakly this is worded, "some", it is totally compatible with the premise the author gave us: silencing dissent has tended to promote the establishment of authoritarian regimes. A tendency allows for exceptions. If I say, "I tend to eat a bow of ice cream every night before bed", that just means "most nights" but doesn't necessarily mean all nights.

   15%
4. D

   Bad Conclusion Match2% picked this

   many good laws have been passed by people who are largely

   The conclusion isn't about whether the law is good or bad. It's about whether the lawmakers are or aren't aware of history. If this answer were re-written to say, "many bad laws have been passed by people who are largely aware of history" it would make more sense as an objection.

   2%
5. E

   Correct62% picked this

   even those who are not ignorant of history may repeat

   Why this is right

   We were given "ignorant history → repeat patterns", and the author tried to reason backwards. This answer points out that you might be "repeat patterns but ~ignorant". If I said "win lottery → rich" and then argued that "since this lawmaker is rich, he must have won the lottery", we could similarly object by saying "even those who have not won the lottery may be rich". This answer acknowledges the possibility that someone might be aware of the effect of silencing dissenters but choose to do it anyway.

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

   62%