Some teenagers, citing Freedom of Speech, say they oppose parents and

Question

Some teenagers, citing Freedom of Speech, say they oppose parents and teachers who chastise them for speaking their mind, provided what they say is their opinion, is honest, and is not derogatory to any of their peers or guardians. The authors of the Amendments to the Constitution made no such provisions. Freedom of speech carries with it no responsibility to meet standards of honesty or respect or truth, especially those established by outside arbiters: students, teachers, and parents.

(C) One's speech is free to be as "dishonest" and "derogatory" as one wishes.

only C is logically matched... IMO

Which of the following most logically completes the argument?

(A) One's speech is required only to present the facts according to common sense standards of opinion, honesty, and respect for peers and family.

(B) One's speech must consider first and foremost the wishes and interests of one's peers, the audience that will listen closely to every word

(C) One's speech is free to be as "dishonest" and "derogatory" as one wishes.

(D) One's speech must simply provide space for one's opponents to present their point of view in order to guarantee the watching public that they are fully and honestly informed.

(E) One's speech must take public responsibility to be truthful, since one's word has a profound impact on the public's understanding of a situation.

perfectstranger · Answer

It is a tough question . Thanks for your post 
+1 Kudos

My answer is "C" . The argument say that . Parents and teachers punish the teenagers when they speak in mind, although they are hones and not derogatory to anyone. Teenagers oppose to parents and teachers' action (chastising) . am.of constitution have no rule for that and also the freedom of speech has no responsibility for students ,teachers...etc. Therefore taking the views from am.of constitution and freedom of speech(no support to students) it can be said One's speech is free to be as "dishonest" and "derogatory" as one wishes. What is the OA

Archit143 · Answer

Hi Sujit
IMO answer to the above question is C.
But i used strengthening technique to get to the answer. I could not find the line for completing the argument. Believing that it is towards the end i have answered the question.

BukrsGmat · Answer

OA: C,

Kudos to perfectstranger for good explanation

nelz007 · Answer

Some teenagers, citing Freedom of Speech, say they oppose parents and teachers who chastise them for speaking their mind, provided what they say is their opinion, is honest, and is not derogatory to any of their peers or guardians. The authors of the Amendments to the Constitution made no such provisions. Freedom of speech carries with it no responsibility to meet standards of honesty or respect or truth, especially those established by outside arbiters: students, teachers, and parents.

(C) One's speech is free to be as "dishonest" and "derogatory" as one wishes.

only C is logically matched... IMO

Doesn't this line help answer the question? if you ask yourself why after that statement, only C answers the question.

umeshpatil · Answer

+1 Kudo. Its difficult question, I went wrong on first read. Convinced with OA.

Teachers and parents chastise the teenagers for speaking their opinion, which is honest and not derogatory. Teenagers oppose this fact.
-> Open minded speech should not be dishonest and derogatory. BUT, constitution made no such provisions.
=> Speech may be dishonest or derogatory. (implied meaning)<<- Answer.

constitution tells that "The speech should carry no responsibility to meet standards of honesty,respect or truth, when it is spoken by outside arbiters. ".. Idea can be extended by saying Speech is open to be dishonest and derogatory.. only Option (C) says this.

Ella02 · Answer

In my opinion C, because in the passage it is mentioned that the Person beats no responsibility, hence the Person does not have to think if it Alriht to say certain things

antztheman · Answer

Some teenagers, citing Freedom of Speech, say they oppose parents and teachers who chastise them for speaking their mind, provided what they say is their opinion, is honest, and is not derogatory to any of their peers or guardians. The authors of the Amendments to the Constitution made no such provisions. Freedom of speech carries with it no responsibility to meet standards of honesty or respect or truth, especially those established by outside arbiters: students, teachers, and parents.

(C) One's speech is free to be as "dishonest" and "derogatory" as one wishes.

only C is logically matched... IMO

(C) One's speech is free to be as "dishonest" and "derogatory" as one wishes.

only C is logically matched... IMO

napolean92728 · Answer

✅ Explanation for Correct Answer (C):
The argument makes a clear point:  the authors of the Constitution’s Amendments did not require freedom of speech to be tied to honesty, respect, or truth.  The speaker contrasts the teenagers’ belief that their speech is protected as long as it’s honest and respectful with the actual intent behind the First Amendment— that speech does not need to adhere to such standards .
Thus,  (C)  directly supports the conclusion and  logically completes  the argument by reinforcing the idea that  freedom of speech includes the right to be dishonest or derogatory,  even if others may not approve.

❌ Why the Other Options Are Wrong:
(A) “One's speech is required only to present the facts according to common sense standards of opinion, honesty, and respect for peers and family.”
 
 This contradicts the main argument. 
 It implies a responsibility to be respectful and honest, which  goes against  the point that the Constitution  does not require such standards .  
(B) “One's speech must consider first and foremost the wishes and interests of one's peers...”
 
 Again, this introduces  an external obligation  (considering peers), which contradicts the core argument that  freedom of speech is not bound by such duties .  
(D) “One's speech must simply provide space for one's opponents to present their point of view...”
 
 This sounds more like a principle of  debate fairness  or democratic discourse. 
 It doesn’t support the argument that  freedom of speech has no inherent obligation to fairness or truth.   
(E) “One's speech must take public responsibility to be truthful...”
 
 This  clearly contradicts  the argument. 
 It imposes a moral or social responsibility that the argument  explicitly denies  is required by the Constitution.

Some teenagers, citing Freedom of Speech, say they oppose parents and

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

Some teenagers, citing Freedom of Speech, say they oppose parents and

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