Q17 - Principle: The government should not prevent

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Principle Support (Strengthen)

Stimulus Breakdown:
Principle: If a belief won't generally harm people and it's true, the government shouldn't stop its expression.

Application: The government's silencing of Calista was wrong. Calista was claiming cancer rates are higher because of cell phones.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion of the Application matches the necessary condition of the Principle. The premises of the Application, however, don't align with the sufficient condition. In order to get the Application to apply, we need to connect the premises with the sufficient condition.

The correct answer should, therefore, state that Calista's claims are true and expressing them won't cause harm.

Correct answer:
(B)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Too weak/neutral. This answer doesn't state whether there is a connection. It also doesn't link to harm.

(B) Bingo. This answer both confirms Calista's statements (satisfying the "true" condition) and states that releasing the information would be beneficial (satisfying the "not harmful" condition).

(C) Out of scope. The Principle is based on truth and actual harm, not Calista's beliefs about the harm of releasing this information.

(D) Out of scope. While this answer does discuss harm, it doesn't discuss truth (something could have strong evidence but still be false). Additionally, since the Application doesn't establish whether there is or is not evidence for Calista's claims, we can't be sure that the sufficient condition of this answer is triggered.

(E) Out of scope. This answer doesn't talk about harm or truth, just what people would do if they believed something. What they would do isn't stated as being harmful or beneficial.

Takeaway/Pattern:
For Principle questions, a clear understanding of the conditional rule (the Principle) is paramount to getting it right!

#officialexplanation

[LukeM22]

Just want to make sure I understand the correct inference to draw from the stimulus:

"The government should not prevent someone from expressing a true belief unless expressing it wold be harmful to people generally"

Which of these inferences is valid?

1) Regarding true beliefs, only if expression of the belief would be harmful could the government be permitted in prevention

(The government should only prevent expression if expression is harmful; warranted prevention of expression must necessarily entail the prevention of harm"; i.e it is necessary but unclear as to whether sufficient)

2) Regarding true beliefs, by virtue of potential harm the government is automatically permitted to prevent expression

(The government should only prevent expression if expression is harmful; prevention of harm in and of itself is sufficient to warrant prevention of expression-- that is, potential harm is both necessary and sufficient to permit prevention of expression, but not necessarily enough to compel/implore the government to prevent expression)

3 Regarding true beliefs, by virtue of potential harm the government is automatically compelled/implored to prevent expression

(The fact that expression would be harmful not only permits but also compels the government to prevent expression)

Sorry, the "should" and the "unless" are throwing me off here.

[ohthatpatrick]

Sounds like #1 to me.

Unless = "if not"

"If expressing the true belief wouldn't be generally harmful, then the government shouldn't prevent it."
and your contrapositive
"If the government IS warranted in preventing it, then expressing this true belief would be generally harmful"

[MJ]

I have a question in regarding what's a "true belief", I thought it means "the person hold the belief truly believe in it, regardless of the correctness of the belief scientifically". So i have chosen C
It seems like here in the question, "true belief" means belief that is in fact correct.
How do I differentiate these two from the stem?
Thanks!