Policy Adviser: Freedom of speech is not only a basic human right; it

not clear how the answer is C?

(A) This seems like a classical case of circular justification. The Policy Adviser starts with the requirement of Freedom of speech and concludes that there is no useful gain in taking thoughts of citizens in secret; which primary means that Govt should take their thoughts openly or at least not secretly. This in my view is circular justification. IMO Correct answer, in-spite of OA
(C) Yes there are moral ideals, but where is the self-interest part in the Policy Adviser's take. He does not talk about his interest at all.

Bunuel - Kindly clarify with OE

Maybe my reasoning was biased by the current political issues that all journals are talking about in LATAM, but my pre-think was: the state trying to benefit itself.

My reasoning was:

Conclusion: Freedom of speech is not only a basic human right; it is also the only rational policy for this government to adopt.
Sup. premisse 1: When ideas ... flourish
Sup. premisse 2: silly ... as such
Main Premisse: dangerous ideas can be responded to by rational argument
Sup. premisse 3: Nothing ... secret.

Paraphrasing: The government should adopt freedom of speech because, among other reasons, it's a human right, and a rational way to respond to dangerous ideas.

(A) I think that this is a tricky one because this alternative use the words "idea" and "flourishes" that appear in the argument but not with the same meaning. So the passage seams to support this alternative.

(B) It's not for the own sake. There are benefits for the gov behind this adoption.

(C) moral ideals: support human rights; self-interest: beeing able to respond to bad ideas with arguments and avoid sily proposals.

(D) Maybe this alternative is a trap related to the last sentence. But the argument is not based on a warning.

(E) If you make some external asumptions this alternative may become a contender.

So here the advisor says "it is also the only rational policy for this government to adopt" and then follows it up with how this particular policy is useful to people. Since this is the only rational policy for this government to adopt, it clearly is also a case of self-interest. Hope this clears the doubt.

At the beginning, I struggled to understand the soundness of Choice C, mostly because of the “self-interest” part. But after a brief reflection, I came to rationalise it as follows.

When I first read the stem, the word “only” jumped out to me. “Freedom of speech is the ONLY rational policy.” Wow, that’s a strong statement. I asked myself, “yes, perhaps free speech is important, but is it the only rational policy?” As I was reading that bit, I was wondering: “So how do you justify that?”

And yet, sufficient justification is nowhere to be found throughout the stem. When I finished reading the stem, I’d lost the track of the “ONLY” thing, but upon reflection, I came to realise that it is in the policy advisor’s interest, not merely to provide reasons to bolster his argument that free speech is essential but also even to exaggerate a bit his “ONLY” argument by talking about moral ideals.

Now, when I go back Choice C: “a coupling of moral ideas with self-interest”. Suddenly, it makes sense.

masakiyada

Not quite--the "self-interest" can't be the author's self-interest, because we have no idea whether adopting this policy serves the interests of the adviser. We are certainly capable of recommending policies that don't benefit us. For instance, I have advocated for policies that would increase my own tax bill without a corresponding increase in benefits.

Rather, the self-interest is on the part of the party the author is addressing: the government. In other words, the author is saying "This is the right thing to do AND you will benefit." It's like saying "This low-emissions car is good for the environment, AND you will save money!" In fact, after the first sentence, pretty much everything the author says is describing how it will be a benefit to the government to allow freedom of speech.

Dear DmitryFarber,

Thank you for your clarification. I’ve perhaps read into it too much. I would agree with you 100%, if the choice did not have the word “SELF”. In fact, I initially thought about the explanation that you’ve given: a benefit to the government. But the “SELF” bit bothered me.

If we place the ‘SELF’ bit in the context, you’ll have “the self-interest of the government.” Now, the “self-interest of the government” is associated more with “the government trying to stay in power by any means necessary”, or “the government silencing its citizens”, and so on, than with “the government doing the right thing for its citizens.” The government doing the right thing for its citizens is, usually (??), in the interest of the government, as well as in the interest of its citizens, but probably not to its ‘SELF-interest.’ Why?

Well, the word “self-interest” seems to me to be about someone or some entity doing things to gain a benefit for himself or itself but not for others. I wasn’t 100% sure, so I looked up in a dictionary, and according to the Oxford dictionary, the word ‘self-interest’ means: “one's personal interest or advantage, especially when pursued without regard for others.” So not only gaining benefits but also doing so for oneself is a part of the word’s connotation.

Now, the analogies that you gave:

"This is the right thing to do AND you will benefit."
"This low-emissions car is good for the environment, AND you will save money!"

These are the examples of a kind, thoughtful person giving a useful piece of advice to someone for the benefit of the person receiving the advice. In other words, these are not the examples of ‘self’-interested’ advice because they don’t disregard others. If so, you have to assume that the self-interest of the person giving advice and the self-interest of the person receiving the advice converge.

As such, you are then assuming that the interest of the government and the interest of its citizens converge, but I rarely see that convergence in the recent human history. I know I’ve watched too much political news and have become the victim of availability heuristic. But I just see too many counter examples to believe in the convergence. Isn’t it too much to ask test takers, usually adults and not impressionable teenagers, to believe that the interest of the government and the interest of its citizens usually converge? So to summarise my problem here: Interest = self-interest??? Really?

Now, if I’m not awfully wrong about the central tenet of the argument, I see it as follows.

Free speech is great because it allows different ideas to be discussed and scrutinised, leading to rational decision-making. Or something like that. And that is in the interest of the government.
Ok, I get that.
But is that the self-interest of the government? Really??

Now, I could be wrong about my explanation, which may be more associative than logical, but just to clarify, I did not mean that the self-interest is related to some personal interest of the advisor. Of course, we cannot know that. Instead, what I meant and perhaps I did not communicate well was that the advisor’s claim about the freedom of speech being the ONLY rational policy is incomplete, all the while the advisor lists up all the wonderful ideals.

The argument gives me an impression that someone is saying: “Look, this is the ONLY way, because then you can achieve these moral, wonderful things! This is the best!” Then, you go like: “Well, is it really the only way??”

Now, the reason that I connected the self-interest to the advisor is that I suddenly remembered reading Aristotle, who talks about 3 rhetorical techniques: logos, pathos, and ethos. And the ethos is the technique of persuasion that uses moral sentiments. Politicians often use that tactic. “I will raise tax because we should save those poor children!” Deceitful bastards!

So these are the reasons that I have a massive problem in seeing the freedom of speech as the self-interest of the government because the government often acts as though the freedom of speech is not its self-interest. Here, I assume the separation of the government and the state. Meanwhile, if I see the whole thing as the rhetorical tactic employed by the advisor, the ethos, then, it makes a whole lot more sense to me.

I’m sure you would agree with me on this that if your interpretation is right, the word ‘self-interest’ is not the most appropriate one here. If it is a trap, then, it is the trap that makes me go “oh, that’s nasty,” but not “oh, that’s clever.”

Thank you for reading my rambling.

From Power score:

The policy advisor argues that since free speech will enable people to better combat inane and dangerous ideas, and that nothing can be gained by forcing communication to be secret, his government ought to allow free speech.

As a side issue, the advisor's last sentence has a double meaning. The basic function is that it defeats the idea that something might be gained by suppressing free speech. Secondarily, there is a strong implication that the speaker is threatening that suppressing free speech will result in invalid and dangerous concepts circulating in secret, and that those concepts may cause trouble because no free discussion can combat them. That threat is one more reason for the government to allow free speech.

Answer choice (A) The policy advisor's reasoning is not circular, and this choice is incorrect. The advisor begins with basic premises and drives toward a conclusion; this argument consists of more than restatement. Furthermore, the advisor does not discuss the conditions under which free speech flourishes.

Answer choice (B) Actually, the advisor does not focus on basic rights, so this choice is incorrect. The advisor makes a pragmatic argument.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. The author briefly mentions basic human rights, a moral concept, and proceeds immediately to argue for the benefits of free speech, a self-interest concept.

Answer choice (D) The advisor's argument is based on the benefits of free speech, not on the difficulty of denying free speech. This choice is wrong, and is based on misinterpreting the advisor's implied threat, which is that suppressing free speech is dangerous, not that it is difficult.

Answer choice (E) The advisor does not describe an ideal situation. The implication of the advisor's argument is that he is willing to accept the fact that free speech will introduce some invalid or dangerous ideas, because free speech will also be a good way of eventually disposing of those ideas. That is not an ideal situation-- an ideal situation would not involve the occurrence of invalid or dangerous ideas. This choice is wrong. Furthermore, the advisor's implied threat indicates that the speaker is also interested in avoiding something bad, not that he is seeking an ideal situation.

Posted from my mobile device

jasicarose75

Notice that the first line specifically says that this is "NOT ONLY a basic human right." That means there's more to the argument, and the author goes on to explain why guaranteeing free speech is a rational move for the government: it helps society to select good ideas and expose bad ones. This is the "self-interest" (on the part of the government) that C is referring to.

I realize I never got back to masakiyada during New Year of 2022, but my short response to that line of reasoning is that "self-interest" does not have to refer to selfishness or manipulativeness. Appealing to self-interest doesn't mean that either the giver or the receiver of the advice is doing something wrong. It just means that the party making the argument makes a point of showing how the audience will benefit from taking the advice given. This could be a selfish trick, but it doesn't have to be. A con artist using your own self-interest to exploit you and steal your money might appeal to your self-interest ("Send me your account # and routing # so I can transfer some funds your way!"), but so might a doctor ("If you exercise and eat your veggies, you might feel better.") You don't have to trust the government or this policy adviser to acknowledge that it could be in the government's best interest to promote debate and good ideas.