Self-study
Critic: Although some people claim it is inconsistent to support freedom of speech and also support legislation limiting the amount of violence in TV programs, Conclusion it is not. ██ ███ █████ ██ ███████ ███████ ███████ ███ ██████ ████ ██ ███████ ████████ ██ ████ ███████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ██████ ████ ███ ███████████ ██████████ ██ ███ ████████████
Summary
The author concludes that it’s not inconsistent to support freedom of speech and also support legislation limiting violence depicted on TV programs.
Why is this not inconsistent?
Limitations on TV program content are allowed because the damage from violent programs is more harmful than the decrease in freedom of speech that results from those limitations.
Notable Assumptions
The author relies on cost/benefit analysis of the harms involved in limiting free speech. Rather than treating support for freedom of speech as an absolute rule, the author believes it’s acceptable to treat it as just one factor that should be taken into account when evaluating whether something is appropriate.
It’s not clear what principle we should anticipate before going to the answers. But we’re trying to prove that holding certain beliefs isn’t inconsistent. So let’s be attracted to answers that appear to help us conclude that something isn’t inconsistent (or that something is consistent).
20.
Which one of the following ███████████ ██ ██████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ ████████ ██████████
a
In evaluating legislation ████ █████ ███████ ██ █ █████ ████████ ██ ██████ ████████ ███ ████████████ ██ ███ ███████ ███ ████████████
(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.
b
One can support ███████ ██ ██████ █████ ██ ███ ████ ████ ███████████ ████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ██████████ ██ █████ ██████████
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.
c
When facing a ██████ ███████ ███████████ ███████ ██ ██████ ██ ████ ██ ████ ██████ █████ ██ ████ █████ ████ ███ ████████ ██████ ██ ██████ ███ █████████
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
If the exercise ██ █ █████ ███████ █████ ██ ████ █████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ████ ███████ ██████ ██ ███████████
(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
In some circumstances, ██ ██████ ████████ ███████████ ████ ███████ ██ █ █████ ████████
(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.