Q21 - Policy Adviser: Freedom of speech

[clairenlee032013]

I was able to reach D by eliminating other answer choices, but not sure how D strengthens the argument. I chose D because it is the only answer choice comes even close to addressing why the government in question should adopt the policy, but it still leaves the gap between the conclusion and the premise wide open--that is, why "it is the only rational policy for this government"?

[ohthatpatrick]

As you mentioned, we have a really strong conclusion to Strengthen here:

Freedom of speech is the only rational policy for this govt. to adopt.

(I'm ignoring the basic human right part since none of the premises were about that)

Why is Freedom of Speech the only rational policy?
i.e., what's so good about it?

openly aired ideas lead to
- good ideas flourishing
- silly proposals being called out as garbage
- dangerous ideas being countered by rational people

What's being assumed?
-"Freedom of Speech" involves "openly aired ideas". (That's barely a language shift, so they're unlikely to force us to spell that out)

-Good ideas flourishing, silly proposals being mocked, and dangerous ideas being responded to are all "things a government would want".

-Freedom of Speech is "the only", if not also the best, method of obtaining those good things.

(A) doesn't Strengthen, since placing limits on freedom of speech is out of scope and seems to drift away from the thrust of the argument.

(B) "with or without a policy of freedom of speech" is enough to make me eliminate (B) for being irrelevant to an argument about Freedom of Speech.

(C) Hey, that's great (C). Let me know when you're ready to talk about Freedom of Speech, which is the topic of this argument.

(D) Here's another good thing about freedom of speech that governments would like: it makes them less likely to be overthrown. That strengthens the conclusion.

(E) This weakens. It attacks the idea that good ideas are more likely to flourish in free speech societies.

So, yes, (D) has nothing to do with the argument core / gaps. It's just an idea that lends more credence to the conclusion, so it strengthens. The other four are totally out of scope or moving in the wrong direction.

Remember that Strengthen and Weaken are not "prove" and "refute". You're totally correct that there are still gaping holes in this argument, but that's not the job of a correct answer on Strengthen.

The correct answer just has to improve the argument by:
- adding new support for the conclusion (as this one does)
- strengthening the connection between the provided support and the conclusion (basically, providing an assumption)
- bolstering the trustworthiness of the evidence (particularly likely when the evidence is something sketchy like a study/survey/sample/analogy/statistic)
- ruling out a potential objection / alternative explanation

Hope this helps.