Veritas Prep Q - SET 5

This topic has expert replies
User avatar
Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
Posts: 447
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 7:13 am
Thanked: 46 times
Followed by:13 members
GMAT Score:700

Veritas Prep Q - SET 5

by hemant_rajput » Sat Aug 10, 2013 11:23 am
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.

[spoiler]OA: B[/spoiler]


I really couldn't understand how why correct answer is correct.
I'm no expert, just trying to work on my skills. If I've made any mistakes please bear with me.
Source: — Critical Reasoning |

GMAT/MBA Expert

User avatar
Elite Legendary Member
Posts: 10392
Joined: Sun Jun 23, 2013 6:38 pm
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Thanked: 2867 times
Followed by:511 members
GMAT Score:800

by [email protected] » Sat Aug 10, 2013 1:22 pm
Hi hemant_rajput,

In this CR prompt, the first sentence tells us that some people think that you can't support:
1) Freedom of Speech AND
2) Legislation limited violence on TV (because that would be anti-freedom-of-speech)

The author (Raymond) says that you CAN support both. Here's why: He says that by weighing the damage of 2 things:
1) Damage done by violent TV
vs.
2) Decrease in freedom of speech

...that the Damage done by violent TV is worse than the loss of freedom of speech.

He argues that you CAN support both ideas as long as you consider that "limiting the damage" that free speech causes is probably better than letting it go unchecked (and letting everyone have unfettered free speech all of the time).

Since we're asked to justify Raymond's reasoning, we need an answer that talks about supporting both ideas while specifically addressing the idea of free speech. Only the correct answer does this. Most of the wrong answers are way too vague to be correct.

GMAT assassins aren't born, they're made,
Rich
Contact Rich at [email protected]
Image