The government is being urged

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Trigger Match4% picked this

   The government should not silence any group for advocating a position that a significant proportion of society

   This rule is saying If a significant proportion govt should of society believes ? not silence position X is beneficial group that advocates X The right side of this rule does line up with our conclusion, so we should consider this answer. Is the trigger applicable to the group recommending uncooked meat? Does a significant proportion of society believe that "suggesting a diet with large portions of uncooked meat" is beneficial? We don't know. The argument doesn't establish that trigger idea, so this answer goes nowhere.

   4%
2. B

   Bad Trigger Match1% picked this

   The government ought to do whatever is in the best interest

   This rule is saying If X is in the best govt should interest of society ? do X The right side of this rule could match up with the conclusion, if we said that X means "not silence a group advocating eating lots of uncooked meat". In order to trigger this rule, we would need to have been told in the argument that "not-silencing a group advocating eating lots of uncooked meat" would be "in the best interest of society". But since we weren't told that, we can't trigger this rule.

   1%
3. C

   Unrelated to Goal0% picked this

   One ought to advocate a position only if one believes that it is true or

   Our conclusion is about whether or not the government is justified in silencing a group. This answer doesn't have any wording like that. This is a principle about whether or not someone should advocate a position. This principle would be more applicable to the groups who are espousing positions. It doesn't have the power to tell the government whether or not to silence. It only has the power to tell the government whether or not to advocate a position.

   0%
4. D

   Correct88% picked this

   The government ought not to silence an opinion merely on the grounds that it could be harmful

   Why this is right

   This rule is saying If the only grounds is govt should that position X could ? not silence be harmful, if it were opinion X disseminated The right side of this rule does line up with our conclusion, so we should consider this answer. Is the trigger applicable to the group recommending uncooked meat? Is the only reason for silencing their opinion the worry that if the opinion were disseminated, it could be harmful? Yes. This is also the underlying similarity happening with the Analogy. In the cases of both the political group and the uncooked-meat group, there is a position that could be harmful to some members of society. And the author thinks that in both cases, the government isn't justified in silencing this opinion. The conclusion even says, "This purported fact does not justify the government's silencing the groups", so the author is saying that "the fact that eating uncooked meat might be very dangerous does not justify the government's silencing of this group".

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

   88%
5. E

   Unrelated to Goal6% picked this

   One ought to urge the government only do those things the government is

   Our conclusion is about whether or not the government is justified in silencing a group. This answer doesn't have any wording like that. This is a principle about whether or not someone should urge the government to do something. Since this principle doesn't provide guidance for how the government should behave, it's useless for supporting our conclusion.

   6%