PrepTest 127

[lcid:3604] Prep Test 127 LSAT — Logical Reasoning — S1 Logical reasoning

Question prompt

Many people say that Remaining source text redacted.
Why the credited answer is right

Credited answer: B

The notes below walk through why it fits the stem and how to eliminate the rest.

Argument or Facts

Argument

Valid or Flawed

Flawed

Question Type

Strengthen with Necessary Premise Questions / Sufficient & Necessary Questions

Stimulus Summary

People - The press shouldn’t gossip about private individuals
Author - The press has a right to publish anything that’s interesting and not libelous. Gossip is interesting. So assuming it’s not libelous, the press has an obligation to publish gossip.

Answer Anticipation

If you viewed this question through a conditional lens, there’s nothing wrong with that! It does establish a principle (the press having a right to publish any story that’s interesting and not libelous) and then applies it to a specific type of story - gossip. When an argument applies a principle to a specific case, the flaw is generally related to failing to fully establish the sufficient condition is met by that case. (Or there’s an illegal reversal/negation, but that’s not present here.)
Here, the sufficient conditions to guarantee the press has a right to publish a story are that the story is interesting and it isn’t libelous. A premise establishes that the type of story being discussed - stories about private individuals - is interesting. And the conclusion is conditioned on the story not being libelous. That covers both pieces of the sufficient condition, so the argument isn’t flawed in that it fails to do that.
When the sufficient condition is met, this type of argument is generally flawed in that it concludes something other than the necessary condition. Here, the principle establishes that the press has a right to publish stories that meet the sufficient conditions. The conclusion, however, is that the press has an obligation to do so. That’s a jump - rights and obligations are distinct. The argument is flawed in that it assumes that a right implies an obligation.
The question stem adds on more than the normal Errors in Reasoning stem - it specifically notes that the correct answer is going to be phrased as the assumption of the argument (“presumes, without giving warrant”), so we should look for an answer stating that having the right to do something guarantees an obligation to do it.

Answer choices

  1. A
    the press can publish Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice A is not credited
    Prying into personal lives was a part of the opposing point, not the author’s argument.
  2. B
    one's having a right Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice B matches the stem
    This answer reflects the author’s assumption. She establishes that the press has a right to publish these stories about private individuals, but she concludes they have an obligation to do so. That means she’s assuming a right implies an obligation, as this answer states.
  3. C
    the publishing of information Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice C is not credited
    The conclusion is conditioned on these stories not being libelous, which means that the author agrees they can be libelous, but when they’re not, the conclusion applies.
  4. D
    if one has an Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice D is not credited
    Close, but this answer reverses the connection, going from the conclusion to the premise. Assumptions justify the conclusion based on the premises, so they go from the premise to the conclusion.
  5. E
    the press's right to Remaining source text redacted.
    Why choice E is not credited
    The argument doesn’t balance competing rights, and the conclusion only applies to non-libelous stories, so this answer is out of scope.

What this tests

Discussion

  • Answer E 4 replies

    Started by cayley

View all discussions Start a discussion