PrepTest 115

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Facts

Question Type:
Must Be True

Stimulus Summary:
Publishing something = Liberty
Offending someone =/= Causing harm
not Cause harm → Wrong for the government to restrict liberties

Answer Anticipation:
This argument starts with a conditional principle, and then it brings up specific examples of a couple of the terms presented there.

The conditional principle states that if something doesn't cause harm, then it's wrong for the government to restrict that action/someone's liberty. (Note that we treated "except" as "if not" here.) It then brings up an example of a liberty—publishing something. And it also brings up an example of something that doesn't inherently cause harm—offending someone.

As such, the correct answer will almost certainly "substitute in" these example for the general terms in the principle:
If something is just offensive, then it's wrong for the government to prevent someone from publishing it.

Answer Explanation:
This answer matches up with our anticipation, substituting in the specific examples provided to the general principle in the opening line. The one notable shift here is that we inferred that restricting such a publication would be wrong, but this answer states that it wouldn't be right. However, if something is wrong, then it isn't right (the reverse isn't necessarily true), so we can still infer this answer!

Key Takeaway:
Note the difference between the jump in answer choice (A) and (E) that allowed (A) to be right while answer choice (E) was wrong. These types of shifts are important to understand.

When the terms that you're dealing with aren't exactly the same but are related, think about whether they guarantee each other, one guarantees the other but not the reverse, or neither guarantees the other. In both cases here, the related terms did provide a guarantee, but only in one direction:
(A) Not right and Wrong. If something is wrong, then it's not right. If something is not right, it might not be wrong (it could be neutral).
(B) Serious harm and Harm. If someone causes serious harm, then it causes harm. If something causes harm, it might not cause serious harm.

Incorrect. This answer is the illegal negation of the principle presented in the stimulus, so it can't be inferred.

Incorrect. The stimulus discusses whether a restriction of liberty is wrong, which isn't the same as being offensive or harmful, so this answer is unsupported.

Incorrect. The Politician's statements are about what it's wrong for the government to restrict, not what's wrong for individuals to publish.

Incorrect. There's a subtle shift here in that it talks about "serious" harm instead of just harm. Since something that doesn't cause serious harm can still cause harm, this answer doesn't tie into the principle in the stimulus. Note that if the stimulus were about serious harm and this answer were about a lack of any harm, then it would be correct, as something that doesn't cause any harm can't cause serious harm.