Imagine that I come into your living room and find you reading a book that I think is really offensive. Imagine that I get so upset about it that I steal the book, then burn it or rip out the pages that I don't like. Then imagine that when you file a complaint, the police and the courts tell you that there's nothing wrong with what I did. This may seem absurd, but what if instead of your living room we were talking about a school or a public library, and instead of me it was one of those "moral values" organizations? This is a situation that is eating away at the very roots of our constitutional system -- the banning of so-called "offensive" books from our library collections.
Which one of the following describes the principal weakness in the author's analogy?
(A) Burning or ripping up a book is not the same as banning a book.
(A) is incorrect because it focuses on the wrong part of the analogy. An analogy is a claim that one situation is the equivalent of another, made to illustrate an important principle. Specifically, the argument is that organizations trying to ban books from public schools and libraries is the same as, or just as bad as, someone coming into your private living room, snatching your book out of your hand and destroying it. The author seems to believe that one person or group of people should not be telling others what they should or should not be allowed to read, but the main argument is the analogy itself. To weaken the analogy, we must find an important, meaningful difference between the two situations. The fact that physically destroying a book is not the same as preventing people from getting it does not weaken the argument, because either method is meant to prevent people from reading it. It does not undermine the principle behind the analogy. Therefore, this is not a meaningful difference.
(B) The police and courts do not condone the theft of personal property.
(B) is incorrect even though it is true. Indeed, all five of the answer choices here are indisputably true. Again, the key to any analogy is the implicit claim of equivalency. To weaken an analogy, one must show that the equivalency is false; that one situation is not the same as the other in a way that undermines the author's reason for making the analogy. Of course stealing is illegal; the author is claiming that banning books is the same as stealing and destroying them. Which it isn't, but not for this reason.
(C) Schools and libraries, unlike the reader's living room, are public institutions.
(C) is correct. This is a meaningful difference between the two situations that undermines the author's argument. Banning books from public institutions such as schools and libraries is NOT the same as stealing and destroying them once they are in private hands. Because schools and libraries are public institutions, everyone is entitled to have a say in what books they carry and make available to the public. This is not to say that opponents of books are entitled to get them banned, but they do have a right to complain. They do not, however, have the right to complain about what any private individual reads in his own home, let alone take corrective action against that person. Note also that the analogy only refers to public schools and libraries, not bookstores, which are privately owned and operated. There is a world of difference between public and private interests. If it's public, the organization has a right to do something about it; if it's private, they have no such right.
(D) Books that may be suitable for adults may not be suitable for children.
(D) is incorrect even though it is true. It does not undermine the equivalency between banning books from public institutions and taking books from private individuals.
(E) The Constitution does not clearly define what makes a book "offensive" in the eyes of the law.
(E) is also true, and also incorrect. The issue is not what is offensive and what isn't. The issue is under what circumstances, and by what means, does a person or organization have the right to oppose "offensive" books.
