PT 36, LR-2, Q20

jmjm
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:59 am

PT 36, LR-2, Q20

Postby jmjm » Thu Sep 06, 2012 1:41 am

Q20 in PT-36, sec 3 is the one about "freedom of speech".

Between B and D, I picked D. It justifies the conclusion in the question -- D limits freedom when it leads to harm, therefore, it justifies the conclusion in the argument that freedom of speech is consistent with limiting violence on TV.

The correct answer is B.

Why not D?

User avatar
CyanIdes Of March
Posts: 743
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: PT 36, LR-2, Q20

Postby CyanIdes Of March » Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:10 am

D does justify his conclusion but it does not justify his reasoning. Remember, we are looking for an answer that allows for the application of the restriction on freedom of speech while also allowing one to still support freedom of speech. D does nothing to remedy the supposed contradiction that he is responding to, it would leave the premise unresolved.

B, on the other hand, works on both levels. It answers how someone could support freedom of speech while still advocating restrictions on it.

HTH

jmjm
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:59 am

Re: PT 36, LR-2, Q20

Postby jmjm » Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:22 pm

D is not inconsistent with the premise (besides the conclusion). The premise is, both TV content and limit on speech freedom are harmful, so, pick the tradeoff that balances the harms. D says whenever TV content is the smallest bit harmful, one should impose limits on freedom. Thus D is technically consistent with the premise -- the scale D uses to weigh the harm caused by a) tv content and b) limit on freedom, simply weighs harm caused by (a) harshly with respect to harm caused by (b).

The kaplan book gives a very unconvincing justification for rejecting D. The only reason I can think of why D is incorrect is because of the word "basic freedom". Nowhere in the question it says that freedom of speech is a basic freedom.

User avatar
CyanIdes Of March
Posts: 743
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: PT 36, LR-2, Q20

Postby CyanIdes Of March » Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:11 am

jmjm wrote:D is not inconsistent with the premise (besides the conclusion). The premise is, both TV content and limit on speech freedom are harmful, so, pick the tradeoff that balances the harms. D says whenever TV content is the smallest bit harmful, one should impose limits on freedom. Thus D is technically consistent with the premise -- the scale D uses to weigh the harm caused by a) tv content and b) limit on freedom, simply weighs harm caused by (a) harshly with respect to harm caused by (b).

The kaplan book gives a very unconvincing justification for rejecting D. The only reason I can think of why D is incorrect is because of the word "basic freedom". Nowhere in the question it says that freedom of speech is a basic freedom.


I didn't say that D was inconsistent with the reasoning, but that it does not justify it. I'm kind of restating myself but D is wrong because it does not explain how one could support both restriction and support freedom of speech.

http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/q20 ... 83d51d82a8

This post offers the same reasoning in different words if you'd like to look at it.

User avatar
052220151
Posts: 2421
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:58 am

Re: PT 36, LR-2, Q20

Postby 052220151 » Fri Sep 07, 2012 1:01 am

D and E essentially say the same thing. If you can make a case for D the same case could be made for E. B is correct. Re-read the first sentence "Although some people claim it is inconsistent to support freedom of speech and also support limiting the amount of violence in TV programs, it is not". This is the conclusion. Paraphrased: 'One can support a basic freedom and at the same time believe that there are situations where the freedom can be overridden'.

D and E both rationalizes situations where you could support an instance of impingement on a basic freedom. B is the only one that justifies the conclusion, that you can support a basic freedom/freedom of speech while still recognizing that there are situations where it can be trumped by other considerations.

Hope that helps. This was a tough one. I took this PT the other day and had to come back to this one. My explanation kind of sucks, sorry.

jmjm
Posts: 329
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:59 am

Re: PT 36, LR-2, Q20

Postby jmjm » Fri Sep 07, 2012 1:35 am

CyanIdes Of March wrote:
jmjm wrote:D is not inconsistent with the premise (besides the conclusion). The premise is, both TV content and limit on speech freedom are harmful, so, pick the tradeoff that balances the harms. D says whenever TV content is the smallest bit harmful, one should impose limits on freedom. Thus D is technically consistent with the premise -- the scale D uses to weigh the harm caused by a) tv content and b) limit on freedom, simply weighs harm caused by (a) harshly with respect to harm caused by (b).

The kaplan book gives a very unconvincing justification for rejecting D. The only reason I can think of why D is incorrect is because of the word "basic freedom". Nowhere in the question it says that freedom of speech is a basic freedom.


I didn't say that D was inconsistent with the reasoning, but that it does not justify it. I'm kind of restating myself but D is wrong because it does not explain how one could support both restriction and support freedom of speech.

http://www.manhattanlsat.com/forums/q20 ... 83d51d82a8

This post offers the same reasoning in different words if you'd like to look at it.


Sorry but D does seem to justify (besides being consistent) both premise and conclusion. D does explain support of both limitation of tv content and freedom of speech because it only applies when freedom of speech leads to harm (it does not apply when freedom of speech does not cause harm and that is how D supports both limiting legislation and the freedom of speech). This is the same token using which B has been argued to be the correct answer.

D is not perfect and neither is B. It can be argued that B (and the link presented) does not justify how sometimes overriding freedom of speech to give way to "other interests" can be applied to reducing harm by TV content.

B sure is the correct answer because LSAT says so. And D is incorrect for a reason. That reason may be something else and not the above.

In fact in another search I found a link stating that D is incorrect due to a different reason; because "it puts things too simply and too bluntly".

AFAIK "basic freedom" in D and not in B may be the reason.

User avatar
CyanIdes Of March
Posts: 743
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2012 1:57 pm

Re: PT 36, LR-2, Q20

Postby CyanIdes Of March » Fri Sep 07, 2012 1:53 am

Well I suppose your free to accept or deny any explanation you'd like to. I believe following your preferred reasoning you will run into further problems of the sort (because you will rule out questions that don't duplicate terms in their answers) but do what you think is best. I still hold that the problem with D is it does nothing to allow one to support Freedom of Speech while also limiting it.

Basic Freedom includes Freedom of Speech, I don't think the question is wrong because of the change here. If it were the reverse it would be, but since it is included and the principle would still apply, I don't think this is the issue.

EDIT: Note that it states that if damage is done then it needs to be restricted... but the stimulus just states if the damage is more so than the restrictions should it be restricted. With D, the principle, when followed, would have you restricting all sorts of freedom all the time because it doesn't imply you need to support basic freedoms/freedom of speech at all.

Say the violence on TV caused damage... but very little damage. D would have you restrict it anyways, B would not necessarily have you restrict it and that's how the argument follows.

User avatar
052220151
Posts: 2421
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 4:58 am

Re: PT 36, LR-2, Q20

Postby 052220151 » Fri Sep 07, 2012 3:31 am

CyanIdes Of March wrote:Well I suppose your free to accept or deny any explanation you'd like to. I believe following your preferred reasoning you will run into further problems of the sort (because you will rule out questions that don't duplicate terms in their answers) but do what you think is best. I still hold that the problem with D is it does nothing to allow one to support Freedom of Speech while also limiting it.

Basic Freedom includes Freedom of Speech, I don't think the question is wrong because of the change here. If it were the reverse it would be, but since it is included and the principle would still apply, I don't think this is the issue.

EDIT: Note that it states that if damage is done then it needs to be restricted... but the stimulus just states if the damage is more so than the restrictions should it be restricted. With D, the principle, when followed, would have you restricting all sorts of freedom all the time because it doesn't imply you need to support basic freedoms/freedom of speech at all.

Say the violence on TV caused damage... but very little damage. D would have you restrict it anyways, B would not necessarily have you restrict it and that's how the argument follows.


TCR.




Return to “LSAT Prep and Discussion Forum”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: PantoroB, Tazewell, Vino.Veritas, Yahoo [Bot] and 9 guests