Logical reasoning PrepTest 144 · Section 4 · Question 20

Incorrect. The conclusion calls for people on the internet today to have "at least as much" freedom of expression as those in the past—which doesn't require those individuals to have "complete" freedom of expression.

Incorrect. There's no indication that either the public square or the internet requires everyone to have access to it to air their ideas, let alone equal access. Even if every citizen but one has equal access to the internet, the argument could still hold.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen with Necessary Premise

Stimulus Summary:
Public square Ð Important tool for democracy because it allowed for discussing issues
Internet Ð Can play the role of the public square today
Conclusion Ð We "should ensure" free speech exists on the internet

Answer Anticipation:
Well, we all know how this turned out . . .

The stimulus here raises a goal—maintain the internet as an effective tool of democracy. This is based on a comparison between the internet and the public squares of old, where people could discuss the important issues of the day. As such, the argument concludes that freedom of expression be protected to at least the same level as it was in the public square.

However, note the shift there—the premise about the public square said that it allowed individuals to discuss the important issues of the day, but it didn't state that they were allowed to do this freely. The discussion of ideas is established as an important tool of democracy, but there's no sign that they have to be freely discussed or discussed at least as freely as they were in the public square.

In order to reach the conclusion that the internet users should have "at least as much freedom" as those in the public square, we need to know that them having less freedom would make the internet less effective as a tool of democracy than the public square.

Answer Explanation:
The argument is in favor of using the internet as a place to air ideas, and it concludes that people "should" be ensured freedom to discuss ideas on the internet. The reason that this "should" happen is to allow for an "important tool" of democracy to work. If the effectiveness of this tool doesn't rely on the ability to discuss issues freely, then it's not necessary to ensure internet users have as much freedom of expression as those in the public square did, and the recommendation in the conclusion falls apart. This answer, therefore, is correct.

Key Takeaway:
This question is tricky because it deals with a concept—freedom of speech—that people tend to have very strong opinions about, and it's easy to bring in some of those assumptions when you're tackling the question. However, remember that many Strengthen with Sufficient/Necessary Premise questions introduce new, key terms in the conclusion, so if you see something that hasn't been mentioned before, then you should assume that it's being assumed by the argument.

Incorrect. The internet just needs to discuss important issues frequently enough to serve as an important tool of democracy for the argument to work, so the balance doesn't have to be in favor of these important issues.

Incorrect. This can be a tempting answer—after all, if there are other public forums that are important tools for democracy, then should we invest in the internet? But there are two problems with that. First, these other public forums might not provide a forum for discussion as the internet does, and thus the internet could still be necessary. Second, even if the internet isn't necessary, it's possible that it's better than other options or that all tools for democracy should be protected, and so there can be other public forums while the recommendation in this conclusion still holds.