siddus wrote:Policy Adviser: Freedom of speech is not only a basic human right; it is also the only rational policy for this government to adopt. When ideas are openly aired, good idea flourish, silly proposals are easily recognized as such, and dangerous ideas can be responded to by rational argument. Nothing is ever gained by forcing citizens to disseminate their thoughts in secret.

The policy adviser's method of persuasion, in recommending a policy of free speech to the government, is best described by which one of the following?

(A) a circular justification of the idea of free speech as an idea that flourishes when free speech is allowed
(B) advocating respect for basic rights of citizens for its own sake
(C) a coupling of moral ideals with self-interest
(D) a warning about the difficulty of suppressing the truth
(E) a description of an ideal situation that cannot realistically be achieved

Guys and gals, give me one good reason to pick C over B
OA: C

siddus wrote:Thanks, RumpelThickSkin

but don't you think that "for its own sake" is more or less equivalent to "self-interest"

What I am coming at here is that in B, the policy adviser is clearly advocating the adoption of "Freedom of Speech policy" further he/she implies that the policy is for the benefit of the government as it distills the good and bad ideas.

So all in all: "advocating respect for basic rights of citizens for its own sake"

??? Why pick B over C ???

martin.jonson007 wrote:I cudn't find anything wrong with choice A....

In fact, given a choice b/w A and C, I wud choose A

B'coz coupling of two things may be in positive OR negative manner ... so can't be sure... but when u say justify.. it is always in positive sense.....

So IMO A

Experts.. plz comment...