While I understand that the first sentence is conclusion, I do not find any reason why second statement cannot be the conclusion, in which case it is difficult to arrive at the correct answer B. If statement 1 is considered a conclusion, it's pretty much clear that the correct answer choice is B.
So my question here is: How do we so confidently say that the first statement is conclusion here even before reading the options. I am having a tough time here accepting the fact that statement 1 must be the conclusion. Request your insights on this.
varotkorn wrote:
Dear
VeritasPrepBrian VeritasKarishma IanStewart DmitryFarber GMATNinja,
After reading the official explanation for this question, I still do not understand the logic behind it. Plus, although it is 95% hard question, no experts have given any explanations yet.
This post is a bit long. Thank you for your patience in advance! :please :please :please
Q1. Why is choice A. wrong? A) In evaluating legislation that would impinge on a basic freedom, we should consider the consequences of not passing the legislationHere
the consequences of not passing the legislation are reflected in this part in the passage:
the damage done by violent programs. If the legislation is not passed, the
violent programs exist and hence its
damage.
And if we consider
the (BAD) consequences of not passing the legislation, we should support the legislation!
Q2. Why is choice D. wrong? (*** many students, including me, choose this one ***)D) If the exercise of a basic freedom leads to some harm, then the exercise of that freedom should be restricted.If choice D. is valid, which is already given in the question stem, this choice strongly justifies the reasoning.
If the exercise of a basic freedom leads to some harm -> We know from the passage that this part in choice D. is true:
the damage done by violent programs is more harmfulthen the exercise of that freedom should be restricted. -> We know that this part in choice D. supports passing the legislation, which restrict the freedom.
Taking choice D. together, we can conclude that supporting both freedom of speech and legislation is indeed consistent.
Q3. Why is choice E. wrong?E) In some circumstances, we should tolerate regulations that impinge on a basic freedom.I am not very convinced by the official explanation, which gives the ONLY reason why choice E. is wrong as follows: "Raymond is focused solely on a small limitation on free speech, while answer choice "E" applies to any "basic freedom", not just freedom of speech"
Reading choice E. in the context of the passage, we can interpret that "a basic freedom" in choice E. could refer to "freedom of speech" in the passage. I think we should allow some flexibility on the wording, as long as it conveys the same meaning. Otherwise, we would fixate on any word verbatim. Moreover, I often see that in many questions, correct answer choices do not normally use the exact same words given in the passage.
Please also kindly note that choice A. and choice D. also use the phrase "a basic freedom". Should we all eliminate these 3 choices solely on the basis of just one phrase?Apart from the detail on the wording, what is wrong with the logic in choice E.?
If
we should tolerate the regulations that impinge on a basic freedom, that would support passing the legislation!
Thank you as always
Though two experts have already given their inputs here, I would like to give mine too just this once to clearly spell out a point I make often.
"Focus on the conclusion"
When strengthening an argument, focus on the conclusion.
Conclusion: it is not (it is not inconsistent to support freedom of speech and also support legislation limiting the amount of violence in TV programs)
We need something that tells us that the two can co-exist. One can support 'freedom of speech' as well as 'legislation limiting violence'.
Let me re-word what options (A), (B), (D) and (E) say.
A) In evaluating legislation that would impinge on a basic freedom, we should consider the consequences of not passing the legislation
Don't support basic freedoms blindly. Consider consequences of not passing the legislation.
B) One can support freedom of speech while at the same time recognizing that other interests can sometimes override
One can support freedom of speech and also support that other interests may override is sometimes. Supporting both is viable. Exactly what we needed.
D) If the exercise of a basic freedom leads to some harm, then the exercise of that freedom should be restricted.
Restrict support to a basic freedom if it harms.
E) In some circumstances, we should tolerate regulations that impinge on a basic freedom.
Tolerate impinging on basic freedom in some cases.
No option other than (B) is telling you that it is consistent to support both. Other options are saying that restrict your support to basic freedoms, if needed. I hope this clarifies that (B) is the answer.