Logical reasoning PrepTest 142 · Section 4 · Question 14

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Methods of Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Opposing point Ð Withholding information is intentional deception and thus unethical.
Journalist Ð There's a distinction between lying and withholding information, so that conclusion is invalid.

Answer Anticipation:
The Journalist's conclusion rebuts an opposing point, so in describing her method of reasoning, it's important to note how she rebuts that viewpoint.

The opposing point concludes that two things are similar in key ways—withholding information is like lying, and so they're both wrong. The Journalist, in rebutting that, brings up a distinction—a relevant difference between lying and withholding information. So the method of reasoning here is that the Journalist rebuts an argument about two things being similar by bringing up a relevant difference.

Answer Explanation:
This answer hits all the parts of the stimulus and our anticipation. The opposing point draws a conclusion about the similarities of two cases (lying; withholding the truth), and the Journalist rebuts this by pointing out a difference between them to show that opposing conclusion shouldn't be drawn.

Key Takeaway:
When an argument in a Methods of Reasoning question has an opposing point being rebutted, the correct answer should highlight how the author goes about rebutting that point. Focus on what the author of the argument does in order to undermine that point—clarify, distinguish, call into question, point out a flaw/assumption? The answer should reflect these methods of rebuttal.

Incorrect. The Journalist doesn't bring up an example of anything, let alone a clear example.

Incorrect. The Journalist doesn't define a concept in a particular way—she states why lying is unethical, but that's distinct from defining it. Additionally, she draws a distinction between two cases, she doesn't show how one concept applies to all cases (which would make them similar).

Incorrect. The Journalist doesn't highlight an example (let alone a counterexample). A counterexample to the opposing point's principle would be an example of intentional deception that wasn't unethical—and the Journalist definitely doesn't do that.

Incorrect. Arguably, the Journalist brings up a situation where a moral principle applies (lying) and doesn't (intentionally withholding information). In arguing that only the former is unethical, the moral principle being used by the Journalist is that actively encouraging a false belief is unethical. However, the Journalist doesn't clarify and defend that principle—she doesn't state it at all! And this answer ignores that her conclusion is a refutation of an opposing point, not a defense of a principle. For all these reasons, we can eliminate this answer.