Policy Adviser: Freedom of speech is

Answer choices

1. A

   Opposite (if anything)2% picked this

   Most citizens would tolerate some limits on freedom

   This answer choice suggests that citizens might accept some limits on freedom of speech, which could actually undermine the argument that it is the only rational policy. It implies there might be acceptability around limiting free speech, which weakens the argument.

   2%
2. B

   No Impact / No Distinction1% picked this

   With or without a policy of freedom of speech, governments respond to

   Since this answer applies to governments regardless of freedom of speech, it won't provide any way for us to argue that having freedom of speech is better than not having it.

   1%
3. C

   No Impact (Out of Scope)3% picked this

   Freedom of religion and freedom of assembly are also basic human rights that

   While freedom of religion and freedom of assembly are important rights, this answer does not directly strengthen the argument for freedom of speech being the only rational policy or relate to the benefits mentioned in the argument regarding ideas and speech.

   3%
4. D

   Correct91% picked this

   Governments are less likely to be overthrown if they openly adopt a policy allowing

   Why this is right

   This answer choice strengthens the argument by suggesting that governments adopting freedom of speech may lead to greater stability, such as being less likely to be overthrown. This outcome aligns with the policy adviser's claims that freedom of speech offers rational benefits to society, reinforcing its status as a logical policy choice. It has nothing really to do with the evidence or with the restrictive conclusion ("the only rational policy"). But it does say something good about freedom of speech, and that's our best available answer.

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

   91%
5. E

   Opposite Impact4% picked this

   Great ideas have flourished in societies that repress free speech as often as in those

   The statement that great ideas have flourished in societies that repress free speech suggests that freedom of speech is not necessary for ideas to thrive. This directly contradicts the premise that freedom of speech is the only way to achieve this outcome, therefore weakening the argument.

   4%