LR Question 17 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Principle: The government should not prevent someone…
QUESTION TYPE: Principle – Application
PRINCIPLE: Government right to prevent + believe true ➞ belief harmful to people
belief not harmful ➞ government right to prevent or belief true
APPLICATION: Government was wrong to prevent Calista from expressing her belief
(The belief was that excessive use of cell phones has contributed to a slight increase in the cancer rate over the last two years)
ANALYSIS: We’re trying to prove “government right to prevent true belief”. To do that, we need the sufficient condition above: “belief not harmful”. The belief also has to be true, because the statement only refers to true beliefs.
Note that this stem is both “justify” and “application”. On balance, I think “application” better fits.
___________
- This is irrelevant. The stimulus is only about whether Calista’s belief is harmful or not. Or whether it’s true. This government research doesn’t impact either, because it doesn’t conclude anything about truth or harm.
- CORRECT. This shows that Calista’s belief was true, and not harmful. Those are the two things we need to conclude that the government shouldn’t restrict her belief.
- This refers to the wrong thing. The principle talked about whether a belief was harmful. This is about whether Calista thinks a belief is harmful. Those aren’t the same thing: the principle is about the fact that a belief is harmless, not the belief that a belief is harmless.
- This weakens Calista’s case. We’re trying to show that her belief is not harmful. This answer can only help show that a belief is harmful.
- This talks about what people would do. But the only relevant question is whether hearing Calista’s belief helps or harms people. We don’t know if reducing cell phones helps or hurts people.
More Resources for Principle Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Principle questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers principle questions.
While I agree with all of these explanations, for this question we actually don’t even need to consider whether the belief is harmful or not (the main focus for most of them).
There is only one answer where evidence of the veracity/truth of the belief is given, and that is B.
That’s indeed a quick way to eliminate the rest. However, the explanations are naturally going to go more in-depth because their purpose is to help students understand why each answer is correct or incorrect.
But yes, as written in the analysis sections, we need to prove that the belief is not harmful and that it’s true. B is the only one that addresses both. Good observation!