Please help!

Conclusion: Freedom of speech is the only rational policy for this government to adopt. Why? We are told that freedom of speech is a basic human right and when ideas are openly aired, good ideas flourish, silly proposals are easily recognized as such, and dangerous ideas can be responded to by rational argument. We are also told that nothing is ever gained by forcing citizens to disseminate their thoughts in secret. So what is the method of reasoning here. Well, not only is the policy adviser giving moral ideals as reasons why freedom of speech is the only rational policy for the government to adopt, e.g. ideas being openly aired causes good ideas to flourish, and dangerous ideas can be responded to by rational argument, but these moral ideals are also in the best interest of the policy adviser because good ideas flourishing and being able to respond to dangerous ideas will help her job. Furthermore, it is in the self interest of the policy adviser since gaining in the context she uses it, is beneficial for her and the government and she tells us that nothing is ever gained by forcing citizens to disseminate their thoughts in secret. Therefore, the policy advisor makes her argument by providing moral ideals that also happen to be in her best interest, i.e. answer choice (C): "a coupling of moral ideals with self interest. Hope that clears things up! Please let us know if you have any other questions.

How can you assume that these ideas pertain to morality? Is it because of "basic human right"? I don't see how you can make that jump.

@Richmond, yes, the phrase "not only a basic human right" suggests a moral argument. To discuss human rights is to have some level of a moral discussion. The issue is not whether free speech is morally required or not, but to assume, as the author does, that free speech is a basic human right is to make a moral assumption. Does that clear it up a bit?

Mehran's explanation for self interest is different from Melody's.

@melissakaijukags did you mean Naz's explanation for self interest (above)? I'm not seeing Mehran or Melody's explanation here.

The self interest aspect is a bit of stretch though right? Because we know she's referring to policy as it affects society, not as it affects her. At least i assumed she was.