Text 1: Philosopher Dr. Emma Wells defends free speech absolutism. "Restricting expression puts authorities in position to abuse power," Wells argues. "History shows censorship silences dissent. Better to tolerate offensive speech than empower censors."
Text 2: Legal theorist Dr. David Park considers speech harms. "Some speech directly causes harm—incitement, harassment, defamation," Park notes. "Pretending all expression is equally harmless ignores real victims. The question isn't whether to limit speech but how to limit justly."
What assumption in Wells's position does Park's argument challenge?
That speech exists as a phenomenon
That all speech causes equivalent or negligible harm
That history contains any relevant examples
That censors exist in society
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the correct answer. Wells's absolutism implicitly treats speech as uniformly tolerable. Park distinguishes speech that "directly causes harm." The assumption of uniform harmlessness is what Park challenges.
- Evidence: Park: some speech causes harm, unlike Wells's framing.
- Reasoning: If harms vary, absolute protection may be unjustified.
- Conclusion: Park challenges Wells's implicit equivalence assumption.
Choice A is incorrect because both discuss speech. Choice C is incorrect because Park doesn't dispute historical relevance. Choice D is incorrect because Park accepts censorship exists as a risk.