When a nation is on the brink of financial crisis, its government does not violate free-market principles if, in order to prevent economic collapse, it limits the extent to which foreign investors and lenders can withdraw their money.
Conclusion
It's not a violation of free-market principles if a government on the verge of a economic collapse needs to limit the extent to which foreign investors and lenders can pull out their money.
Evidence
It's not a violation of free-speech principles to say that you can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded movie theater, because that could lead to a harmful stampede. Similarly, letting foreign investors and lenders stampede to get their money out of an imperiled economy could do harm.
Evaluation
Our job is just to characterize the type of evidence or type of move the author made to support her conclusion. The most common type of correct answer on Method is questions is that the author used an analogy to support her argument, and that seems to be what's happening here. To make a point about governments limiting free-market activities, the author used an analogy about a case we already accept in which governments limit free-speech activities. In both cases, the point of doing so is the avoidance of harm.
Goal
Look for something saying that the author used an analogy to show that placing some limits on an activity in order to avoid harm can be a reasonable position and not a violation of the underlying principle of freedom.