(A) helps us reach the conclusion that we should consider the consequences of not passing a law limiting TV program. But it doesn’t help us reach the judgment that two views are consistent with each other. How is it not contradictory to support freedom of speech and support a limitation on it? (A) doesn’t help us answer that question.

This helps establish that supporting freedom of speech is consistent with also supporting something that limits freedom of speech. (B) makes acceptable the idea that one can recognize that a limit on freedom of speech can be overriden by other interests (such as the interest in preventing damage from violent program), but also support freedom of speech at the same time.

Th concept of making the “greatest number of people the happiest” has no connection to the argument. We don’t know whether passing or not passing the legislation would make the greatest number of people the happiest, and in addition, (C) doesn’t help show that two views are not inconsistent.

(D) would help establish that the exercise of a freedom such as free speech should be restricted. But it doesn’t help reconcile the belief that freedom of speech should sometimes be restricted with the belief that we should support freedom of speech. (D) doesn’t establish that two views can be consistent with each other.

(E) helps show that in some cases we should tolerate a law that infringes on a basic freedom. But (E) doesn’t show how the view expressed by (E) is compatible with the view that we should support that basic freedom.