Logical reasoning PrepTest 120 · Section 3 · Question 26

Incorrect. The ad was published by both magazines, so this answer would suggest that both were morally delinquent.

Incorrect. Assuming that the ads count as being regularly transmitted to the public, there's two other issues here. First, this answer is about monitoring the content, not moderating it. Second, this answer would apply to both magazines, thus not justifying the diverging conclusions about their moral delinquency.

Incorrect. The two magazines are similar agents, and they committed the same action. This answer would thus justify reaching the same conclusion in both cases.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Question - Were certain magazines "morally delinquent" to publish an offensive ad?
Magazine 1 - Sets out to screen all ads
Magazine 2 - Publishes any ad that it receives
Conclusion/Answer - M1: Yes. M2: Nope.

Answer Anticipation:
The question stem asks us to find a principle that justifies both parts of the conclusion, so we need a rule that provides a sufficient condition for both an action being and not being morally delinquent.

The argument itself compares two Magazines, and it reaches opposite conclusions about their moral delinquency. The only relevant difference between the magazines—both of which ran the offensive ad—is that the first magazine screens the ads, but the second magazine doesn't.

The correct answer, therefore, should connect screening the ads to being morally delinquent when an offensive one makes it through the screening process.

Answer Explanation:
This answer addresses the difference between the magazines. For the magazine that publishes every ad it receives, they never purported to uphold any moral standards, and so failing to do so isn't necessarily a moral failing—thus justifying that portion of the conclusion. However, the other magazine did commit themselves to rejecting offensive ads, and so this answer justifies concluding that they were morally delinquent. Since this answer justifies the different conclusion for each magazine, it's the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
Strengthen (Principle) questions will occasionally ask you to justify a two-part conclusion. When this happens, start by considering if the argument concludes the same thing in both cases, or different things. If the former, identify the similarities established in the premises and then find an answer connecting them to the conclusion. If the latter, identify the differences established in the premises and find an answer connecting them to the different conclusions.

Incorrect. The ad here was offensive, so this answer doesn't apply.pply."