The government is being urged to prevent organizations devoted to certain views on human nutrition from advocating a diet that includes large portions of uncooked meat, because eating uncooked meat can be very dangerous. ████████ ████ █████████ ████ ████ ███ ███████ ███ ████████████ █████████ ███ ███████ ███ ██████ ███ ██████████ █████ ███ ██ █████████ ██ █████████ █ ██████ █████████ █████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ███ ████████ ███ █████ █████████ █████ ██ ███████ ██ ████ ███████ ██ ████████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ████ ███ █████████ ██████ ████ ███████ █████ ██ █████ ██████████
The author concludes that the government shouldn’t silence nutrition groups that promote eating raw meat just because eating raw meat can be harmful. He supports this with an analogy, saying the government shouldn’t silence political groups just for promoting harmful policies.
The author supports his conclusion with an analogy, but his premises never establish that potentially harmful nutrition groups and potentially harmful political groups are relevantly similar. He simply assumes that the two scenarios are analogous.
To help justify his argument, we need a principle or rule that either confirms that these situations are relevantly similar, or else, more broadly, a principle that asserts that the government should never silence any group just because its opinions could be harmful.
Which one of the following ██████████ ████ █████ ██ ███████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ █████████
The government should ███ ███████ ███ █████ ███ ██████████ █ ████████ ████ █ ███████████ ██████████ ██ ███████ ████████ ██ ██ ███████████
The government ought ██ ██ ████████ ██ ██ ███ ████ ████████ ██ ████████
One ought to ████████ █ ████████ ████ ██ ███ ████████ ████ ██ ██ ████ ██ █████ ██ ███████████
The government ought ███ ██ ███████ ██ ███████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ██ █████ ██ ███████ ██ ███████████ ███ ████████
One ought to ████ ███ ██████████ ██ ██ ████ █████ ██████ ███ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ ██████