Politician: It is wrong for the government to restrict the liberty of

Question

Politician: It is wrong for the government to restrict the liberty of individuals, except perhaps in those cases when to fail to do so would allow individuals to cause harm. Yet, to publish something is a liberty, and to offend is not to cause harm.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the politician's statements?

A) It is not right for the government to restrict the publication of literature that is only offensive

B) It is not wrong for the government to restrict individuals' liberty when failing to do so would allow individuals to cause harm

C) It is offensive for the government to restrict the liberty of individuals to publish, but it is not harmful

D) It is not wrong for individuals to publish literature that is offensive

E) It is not right for the government to restrict the publication of literature that does not cause serious harm

nightblade354 · Accepted Answer

Since people seem to be struggling on this one, here is the explanation:

Politician: It is wrong for the government to restrict the liberty of individuals, except perhaps in those cases when to fail to do so would allow individuals to cause harm. Yet, to publish something is a liberty, and to offend is not to cause harm.

The difference between A and B in this wording of the passage. For (B), please note the use of the term "perhaps". Now this statement introduces ambiguity. Without "perhaps", (B) would be 100% correct. Now, (A) is correct because of the following breakdown:   It is wrong for the government to restrict the liberty of individuals, except......when to fail to do so would allow individuals to cause harm. Yet, to publish something is a liberty, and to offend is not to cause harm.   This says exactly what (A) says. You cannot restrict the right of someone unless it harms them -- and being offensive is not harm.

(C), (D), and (E) are all horribly wrong, but I can explain them further if it is needed.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the politician's statements?

A) It is not right for the government to restrict the publication of literature that is only offensive

B) It is not wrong for the government to restrict individuals' liberty when failing to do so would allow individuals to cause harm

ShankSouljaBoi · Answer

Is B wrong, because this is a restatement of premise ?  aragonn

KarishmaB · Answer

It is wrong for Govt to restrict liberty (except perhaps in those cases when individuals could cause harm).
To publish something is a liberty.
To offend is not to cause harm.

So we can conclude it is wrong for Govt to restrict publishing (a liberty) if it only offends (which is not harmful). So (A) is correct.

B) It is not wrong for the government to restrict individuals' liberty when failing to do so would allow individuals to cause harm

Note that the argument is not fully convinced about restricting when it can cause harm - "except perhaps  in those cases when individuals could cause harm"
So we cannot conclude that it is not wrong. Perhaps it is not wrong but can we be sure? No.

C) It is offensive for the government to restrict the liberty of individuals to publish, but it is not harmful

The argument does not talk about what is offensive for the government. This is irrelevant.

D) It is not wrong for individuals to publish literature that is offensive

The argument does not talk about whether it is wrong or not. It only talks about whether the Govt restricting liberty is wrong or not.

E) It is not right for the government to restrict the publication of literature that does not cause serious harm

The argument does not talk about "serious" harm.

unraveled · Answer

Politician: It is wrong for the government to restrict the liberty of individuals, except perhaps in those cases when to fail to do so would allow individuals to cause harm. Yet, to publish something is a liberty, and to offend is not to cause harm.

Which one of the following can be properly inferred from the politician's statements?

The passage is like 
Wrong Govt = WG
Liberty of Individual = LI(here publishing something)
restrict Liberty of Individual = nLI(here restrict publishing something)
offend/Offensive = O
Cause harm = CH
not Cause harm = nCH
O = nCH

nLI ----> nCH(O) ----> WG

A) It is  not right for the government  to  restrict the publication of literature  that  is only offensive  - CORRECT. All points covered perfectly. nLI ----> O(nCH) ----> WG

B) It is  not wrong for the government  to  restrict individuals' liberty when failing to do so would allow individuals to cause harm  - WRONG. Being wrong is inferable but not being right. Reverse causality.

C) It is  offensive for the government  to restrict the liberty of individuals to publish, but  it is not harmful  - WRONG. nLI ----> nCH ---> OG

D) It is  not wrong for individuals  to publish literature that is offensive - WRONG. LI ---> O ---> n Individual

E) It is  not right for the government  to  restrict the publication of literature  that does not cause  serious  harm - WRONG. Additional element "serious" can't be inferred.

Answer A.

Siddharth17 · Answer

KarishmaB

I missed to read perhaps but I eliminated B because it was just restating a part of the paragraph and so it wasn't an inference. was this elimination correct? 
what if it was a conclusion question?

egmat · Answer

Hi Siddharth17,

Good news first: you landed on  A , and you're right that B is wrong. But the  reason  you used to kill B is a shaky rule of thumb, so let's tighten it.

"It restates a premise" is not a safe eliminator for inference questions

On a "can be properly inferred" (must-be-true) question, a correct answer does  not  have to be a brand-new derived conclusion. Anything that must be true given the statements qualifies - and a faithful paraphrase of a premise  must  be true. So a restatement can absolutely be the credited answer here. If you eliminate every choice that echoes the text, you'll eventually axe a correct one.

The real reason B fails is the word you flagged: "perhaps"

Look at the exact wording: "except  perhaps  in those cases when to fail to do so would allow individuals to cause harm." B says it is  not wrong  for the government to restrict liberty in those harm cases. That's a definite claim. But "perhaps" only says restriction  might  be acceptable there - the politician never commits to it. So we can't conclude "it is not wrong." B overstates a tentative exception into a certainty. That single scope word is what sinks it - not the fact that it echoes the premise.

Notice the difference: turn one knob and B flips.
- If the stimulus said "except in those cases..." (no "perhaps") - B would be  correct , and it  would  be essentially a restatement. Proof that a restatement can be a valid inference.
- With "perhaps" in there - B is only  maybe  true, so it fails a must-be-true test.

What if it were a conclusion (main point) question?

Different test. There you're picking the author's single main claim, and a premise - even restated perfectly - is  not  the conclusion, so it would be wrong. But you'd reject it for being  a premise rather than the main point , not for "being a restatement." Match the eliminator to the question type: for inference, judge by  must it be true ; for main point, judge by  is this the conclusion .

Answer: A

Politician: It is wrong for the government to restrict the liberty of

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Politician: It is wrong for the government to restrict the liberty of

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards