Examkin

Question

Difficulty: Very hardApplying the Negation Technique

Philosopher: Any society that guarantees absolute free speech runs the risk of political extremism. However, a society cannot foster robust intellectual debate unless it guarantees absolute free speech. Furthermore, historical evidence strongly suggests that a society cannot truly flourish without fostering robust intellectual debate. Therefore, it is clear that any society that actively attempts to eliminate the risk of political extremism will ultimately fail to truly flourish.

Which one of the following is an assumption required by the philosopher's argument?

  1. Actively attempting to eliminate the risk of political extremism is incompatible with guaranteeing absolute free speech.Answer
  2. B
    A society cannot successfully eliminate the risk of political extremism as long as it guarantees absolute free speech.
  3. C
    Any society that successfully fosters robust intellectual debate will ultimately truly flourish.
  4. D
    Societies should prioritize true flourishing over the elimination of the risk of political extremism.
  5. E
    A society that does not actively attempt to eliminate the risk of political extremism will truly flourish.

Answer

The argument requires the assumption that actively attempting to eliminate the risk of political extremism is incompatible with guaranteeing absolute free speech.
For the philosopher to conclude that merely *attempting* to eliminate the risk will doom a society's chance to flourish, they must assume that the attempt itself triggers the loss of free speech. If attempting to eliminate the risk were compatible with keeping free speech, a society could make the attempt, keep free speech, foster debate, and still flourish.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the argument's conclusion and premises.
Conclusion: Societies that actively attempt to eliminate the risk of political extremism will fail to flourish. Premises: Flourishing requires robust intellectual debate, which requires absolute free speech. Absolute free speech inherently brings the risk of political extremism.
Deconstructing the argument is the first step in finding the logical gap.
2
Map the conditional logic established by the premises.
Truly Flourish -> Foster Debate -> Guarantee Free Speech -> Run Risk of Extremism. Contrapositive: If a society does NOT run the risk of extremism, it cannot truly flourish.
Formalizing the logic reveals exactly what the premises prove.
3
Identify the logical gap between the premises and the conclusion.
The premises prove that *actually succeeding* in eliminating the risk of extremism prevents flourishing. However, the conclusion claims that merely *attempting* to eliminate the risk prevents flourishing.
Assumptions bridge the gap between what is stated and what is concluded.
4
Apply the Negation Technique to test the correct assumption.
Negating the correct option yields: 'Actively attempting to eliminate the risk is COMPATIBLE with guaranteeing absolute free speech.'
The Negation Technique tests if an assumption is truly necessary; its logical opposite must destroy the argument.
5
Evaluate the effect of the negated assumption on the conclusion.
If a society can attempt to eliminate the risk while keeping free speech, it can still have robust debate and thus still flourish. The philosopher's conclusion is destroyed, proving the assumption is required.
This confirms that without this assumption, the premises do not support the conclusion.

Key Concept

Applying the Negation Technique to conditional logic gaps.
Rate this question

Topics

Applying the Negation Technique

More questions from this topic