When a nation is on the brink of financial crisis, its government does not violate free–market principles if, in orde...

Wyatt on January 25, 2019

Please provide guidance

had trouble with this one any help would be much appreciated

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Jacob on January 26, 2019

Hi @Wyatt

I’m happy to help.This question stem asks us to describe what the argument is doing. For these types of questions, I find that it is useful to read the passage, try to describe what the argument is doing in your own words, and then see if any answer aligns closely to that.

We learn from the passage that when the nation is on the brink of financial crisis, govt. does not violate free-market principles if, in order to prevent collapse, it limits the extent to which foreign investors and lenders can withdraw $. We then get a comparable example: the right to free speech does not include the right to shout fire in a theater. And then we get a bridge from that example to this situation, namely that the harms are comparably real.

So how would you describe that? We are told that a given principle can sometimes be limited, with an example, and a connection to why that example is similar.

And that is exactly what answer A says: analogy to a similar principle that is limited in a similar way.

I hope that helps! Please let us know if you have further questions.