Critical Reasoning

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.

OA will be later.

I'm between A and D

Raymond's argument is that one can support freedom of speech in general but also support limiting that freedom in cases where there is a net harm (i.e., the damage from violent TV is worse for society than the decrease in freedom imposed by regulating TV content). We need a principle that goes along with that.

A does not work; Raymond does not discuss the consequences of not passing legislation.

B fits; one can support the general ideal while also recognizing that there are other factors to consider in specific cases.

C is irrelevant; there is nothing in Raymond's argument about making people happy.

D is too broad; Raymond's argument is that in specific cases it may make sense to limit basic freedoms. He's not saying that harm automatically means that freedom should be restricted.

E is similarly too broad; we don't know if Raymond's opinion applies to all basic freedoms or only to freedom of speech.

Was torn between A and B but chose B for following reasons..


A) In evaluating legislation that would impinge on a basic freedom, we should consider the consequences of not passing the legislation -> Consequences are not discussed in the OP

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 -> Nothing about making people happier is mentioned.

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

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

Official answer B

Tommy Wallach wrote:Hey All,

Just to be clear, this is an LSAT question. As far as I know "Identify the Principle" questions don't exist on the GMAT. Now, one can make a reasonable argument about studying using LSAT questions (in fact, I'm going to post a thread on it!), but there are some significant differences between LSAT and GMAT questions...even those of the same type (i.e. GMAT assumption questions are DIFFERENT than LSAT assumption questions). So be careful!

-t

This is the question from VeritasPrep GMAT Set 5 #62.