Raymond: Although some people claim it is inconsistent to

Question

Raymond:  Although some people claim it is inconsistent to support freedom of speech and also support legislation limiting the amount of violence in TV programs, it is not. We can limit TV program content because the damage done by violent programs is more harmful than the decrease in freedom of speech that would result from the limitations envisioned by the legislation.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify Raymond's reasoning?

A) In evaluating legislation that would impinge on a basic freedom, we should consider the 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

C) When facing a choice between restricting freedom of speech or not, we must decide based on what would make the greatest number of people the happiest

D) If the exercise of a basic freedom leads to some harm, then the exercise of that freedom should be restricted.

E) In some circumstances, we should tolerate regulations that impinge on a basic freedom.

dwivedys · Accepted Answer

I chose B. We should be clear what the stimulus is taking about - it is talking about freedom of speech. The answer choices very subtly expand the scope of the stimulus by introducing BASIC FREEDOM. Any answer choice talking about basic freedom would become too generic when the stimulus is concerned basicalliy with a particular form of basic freedom - viz freedom of speech. We should restrict ourselves to the choice that talks about freedom of speech and hence B.

GMATNinja · Answer

This question becomes significantly more straightforward to answer if we do two things immediately:

Be very clear about what the conclusion is 
  Be very precise in reading the question

Raymond concludes that  it is NOT inconsistent to support both  freedom of speech AND legislation limiting the amount of violence in TV programs.
The question asks: Which principle most helps  justify Raymond's reasoning ?

So as we begin our process of elimination, keep in mind that we are NOT here to justify the legislation or strengthen a case for legislation. We're looking for the choice that most strengthens Raymond's logical conclusion: that  it is NOT inconsistent to support both freedom of speech and the legislation.

Choice (A) give us a compelling reason to support the legislation, but Raymond's conclusion was NOT that "we should support the legislation." His conclusion was that it is not inconsistent to support both freedom of speech and the legislation. This answer choice doesn't directly address how these two positions can be considered consistent with each other, so we can eliminate it.

Great! Choice (B) tells us explicitly that one can support freedom of speech while still recognizing overriding interests (like damage done by violence resulting from forms of speech). This principle directly supports Raymond's reasoning and strengthens his conclusion, so we'll keep it around.

Raymond's reasoning doesn't mention, let alone depend on, "what would make the greatest number of people the happiest." Eliminate (C).

Much like answer choice (A), choice (D) gives us a reason to support the legislation described by the passage. More specifically, this choice offers a principle supporting the restriction of freedom of speech. And like answer choice (A), this principle supports a conclusion to support the legislation at the expense of free speech (not a conclusion that one can consistently support both). Eliminate (D).

Choice (E) is just a more broad version of choice (D). Eliminate (E).

We're left with choice (B) because that's the only answer choice that justifies Raymond's conclusion, precisely as it is written.

Perhaps  Raymond  thinks that citing damage done by violent programs explains his reasoning, but as test takers reading this passage, we can recognize that this is not so.

Raymond concludes that inconsistency is in fact NOT inconsistency. Then rather than explaining how that can be logically justified, he simply doubles down on the case for sacrificing freedom of speech in support of the legislation. The question sets us up to identify what could justify this reasoning.

I hope my explanation helped! If you find yourself in a situation where multiple answer choices sound plausible but also sound kinda similar, be sure to revisit precisely what was concluded and precisely what's being asked (this can also help on RC questions). You could end up saving yourself a lot of time that would have been spent splitting hairs comparing answer choices to each other, rather than evaluating how each choice answers the question itself.

nverma · Answer

OA and OE please.

mads · Answer

IMO, it is A.
A. In evaluating legislation that would impinge on a basic freedom, we should consider the consequences of not passing the legislation.
>> Raymonds reasoning is to evaluate the pros and cons of legislation.So this statement justifies his reasoning.

Please post OA.

angel2009 · Answer

What is the source of this question?
A, B, C are out ; B is too generic, I think E properly address the issue.
IMO E.
OA please

reply2spg · Answer

I think that D is the correct answer. This is bit tough and takes more than 2 min. What is the source and OA?

Kiski · Answer

Caught between B & E,going for E. OA pls.

ykaiim · Answer

IMO A.

It is in sync with the last statement of the Raymond's reasoning.

Please post the OA.

atnt444 · Answer

My pick is D .
look at these 2 sentences :

We can limit TV program content because the damage done by violent programs is more harmful than the decrease in freedom of speech that would result from the limitations envisioned by the legislation

which is more of less like the principle in choice D :

If the exercise of a basic freedom leads to some harm, then the exercise of that freedom should be restricted.

vijayvenky · Answer

Stimulus

1. harm by TV violence > harm by decreasing Freedom of speech(FOS).
2. <>
conclusion: Hence, it is plausible to support FOS and at the same time support a legislation that limits FOS.

Now we are looking at the justification of the conclusion question and the answer should make the conclusion inevitable from the premises.

considering the close options A,B and D.
replace these options at the premise 2 and find out whether we are having inevitable conclusion.
A--> does not quite close the gap (we have already considered the consequences in premise 1).
D--> well, doesn't come much in to the scope of the argument, in the stimulus it was no where mentioned that the FOS is causing harm.
B--> Replace this option and see how inevitably the argument has been satisfied.

1. harm by TV violence > harm by decreasing Freedom of speech(FOS).
2. One can support freedom of speech while at the same time recognizing that other interests can sometimes override
conclusion: Hence, it is plausible to support FOS and at the same time support a legislation that limits FOS.

My pick B. OA Please?

Please correct me if I'm wrong

Octobre · Answer

I would say D. I will explain if it is the OA.

amp0201 · Answer

Answer is E.

I am not sure why many people are responding to B.

A) In evaluating legislation that would impinge on a basic freedom, we should consider the consequences of not passing the legislation
-- This is weakening the argument. Hence not a correct choice.

B) One can support freedom of speech while at the same time recognizing that other interests can sometimes override
-- There is no question of interests. Hence cannot be a correct choice.

C) When facing a choice between restricting freedom of speech or not, we must decide based on what would make the greatest number of people the happiest
-- This is not a question of happiness. Hence cannot be a correct answer choice.

D) If the exercise of a basic freedom leads to some harm, then the exercise of that freedom should be restricted.
-- The argument is more towards the harm caused by the violence in the TV programs rather than the freedom. Hence not a correct choice.

E) In some circumstances, we should tolerate regulations that impinge on a basic freedom.
-- If under some circumstances (like the harm caused by the violence in TV programs), it will be better to tolerate the impinge on the basic freedom.

Hence correct answer choice is E.

OA please. Thank You.

Thanks,
Akhil M.Parekh

ykaiim · Answer

I googled this and this link says OA is B. https://www.urch.com/forums/gmat-critica ... peech.html

amp0201 · Answer

Thanks ykaiim. But why the answer can't be E. Doesn't it sounds similar to what B has to say. Please if some one can explain the reasoning. Thank You.

Thanks,
Akhil M.Parekh

ykaiim · Answer

Even I am not very much clear on this. A, B and E are all equal contenders.

dwivedys · Answer

I am a fan of your CR skills...it's nice to receive a "thank you" from you :-D

WaterFlowsUp · Answer

Answer choice “B” sets up a system of priorities, whereby one can support the freedom of speech while at the same time recognizing other interests. This hits on the notion of consistency in supporting two conflicting ideas and bridges the logical gap perfectly. “B” is the right answer

Krishaa12 · Answer

We cannot point freedom of speech is a basic freedom correct me if I am wrong , this is a reason I rejected E

rever08 · Answer

GMATNinja  Could you please help me understand what's wrong with my analysis?

Raymond: Although some people claim it is inconsistent to support freedom of speech and also support legislation limiting the amount of violence in TV programs, it is not.

Direct Inference: It is consistent to support freedom of speech and also support legislation limiting the amount of violence in TV programs as per the author. And he is going to present reason for the same in the next line.

We can limit TV program content because the damage done by violent programs is more harmful than the decrease in freedom of speech that would result from the limitations envisioned by the legislation.

So we know why it???s consistent as per the author.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify Raymond's reasoning?

A) In evaluating legislation that would impinge on a basic freedom, we should consider the consequences of not passing the legislation - Out of scope

B) One can support freedom of speech while at the same time recognizing that other interests can sometimes override - Not too sure

C) When facing a choice between restricting freedom of speech or not, we must decide based on what would make the greatest number of people the happiest - Out of scope

D) If the exercise of a basic freedom leads to some harm, then the exercise of that freedom should be restricted. - Isn???t this conveyed through the last lines?

E) In some circumstances, we should tolerate regulations that impinge on a basic freedom. - Again passage never talked about tolerating regulations

I went with D. Please help me understand how is B more than correct than D.

Raymond: Although some people claim it is inconsistent to

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

Raymond: Although some people claim it is inconsistent to

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