The public square was an important

Answer choices

1. A

   Too Strong: complete11% picked this

   People speaking in the public square of days past had complete

   The author doesn't need to believe that there were absolutely zero limits on freedom of expression in the public square. The author wants the Internet to have at least as much freedom of expression as the public square did. That expression actually implies that you could have more freedom of expression than the public square did. So in reality the author's conclusion reveals that she doesn't think the public square had 100% freedom of expression. You wouldn't say "X should have at least as much as Y" if you thought that Y already had the maximum amount.

   11%
2. B

   Too Strong: all / same7% picked this

   All citizens have the same level of access to

   The author hasn't committed herself to the incredibly extreme claim that every single citizen of the world has identical levels of access to the Internet. No one believes that, including this author.

   7%
3. C

   Correct72% picked this

   A public forum can lose effectiveness as a tool of democracy if participants cannot

   Why this is right

   This is very mildly worded (can lose effectiveness), and it seems to combine wording from the Conclusion (free expression) with wording from the Evidence (a public forum that was a tool of democracy). It's also conditional: If participants can't --> then public forum discuss issues freely can lose effectiveness as tool of democracy When we see conditional answers on Necessary Assumption, we often want to contrapose them and ask, "Did the author make that reasoning move"? The contrapositive is saying, "If you don't want a public forum to lose effectiveness as a tool of democracy, then you need for participants to be able to discuss issues freely". Does that match the author's thinking? Yes, roughly. The author establishes that the public square was an important tool of democracy. She then says that the Internet can now play this role as public forum. Presuming that she wants the Internet to be at least as effective as a tool of democracy, if she says that we need to ensure freedom of expression on the Internet, then she's thinking that freedom of expression is connected to the ability of the Internet to play this role as a public forum that is a tool of democracy. In all honesty, this answer is very flawed because of a Relative vs. Absolute distinction (that LSAT frequently tests us on but is apparently willing to cast aside here). This answer is talking about whether or not someone is able to discuss issues freely, which is Absolute language. The argument was about whether or not the Internet allows people to discuss issues more / less freely than the public square did, which is Relative language. We're really only going to decide this is the correct answer by convincing ourselves that this is "Best Available", even if it's technically written wrong.

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

   72%
4. D

   Unsupported Comparison7% picked this

   The Internet is more often used to discuss important issues than to

   The author hasn't gotten into what is typically discussed on the Internet, so there's no basis for saying the author has committed to the idea that the Internet is more often used to discuss important stuff than frivolous stuff. If we negate this and say, "Not true -- the Internet discusses frivolous stuff about as often as important issues", does that weaken? Not really. As long as the Internet can provide a forum for citizens to discuss important issues, it's fine if the other 70% of the time it provides a forum for sharing recipes and shoe-aspirations.

   7%
5. E

   Too Strong: no3% picked this

   Other than the Internet, no other public forum today is an important

   This is pretty tempting because if we negate this and say, "There are other public forums today, besides the Internet, that are an important tool of democracy", it starts to feel like it's weakening. The author is worried about safeguarding free expression on the Internet, because she wants it the Internet to play the same role as the public square (which was an important tool of democracy). If there are other public forums that are important tools, then why do we need to worry about safeguarding free expression on the Internet? Well, the author could say, "I'm not saying we need to safeguard free expression online or else we have no public forums that are important tools of democracy. I'm just saying we should. Maybe for some people, the Internet is the only public forum they would have access to." The author could also say, "Those other public forums, such as primaries and general elections, are important tools of democracy, but they don't play the same role. A hammer and a screwdriver are both important tools of house repair, but they don't play the same role. I'm specifically concerned with whether people have a forum for disparate citizens to discuss important issues of the day". This answer would be better if is said, "For people with Internet access, there is not some other public forum they can readily use that would provide a forum for debating important issues of the day".

   3%