PrepTest 148

Incorrect. The conclusion of the argument says that the only case where "loophole" should be used is when there is wrongdoing, so, if anything, she believes a loophole necessarily involves wrongdoing.

Incorrect. The conclusion is about news stories, so a principle establishing what editorials should do is unlikely to justify it.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
"Loophole" implies wrongdoing, so if a news reporter uses it, they should provide evidence of wrongdoing.

Answer Anticipation:
The conclusion brings in a new idea—evidence. The premise establishes that "loophole" implies wrongdoing, and the conclusion states that the word shouldn't be used without evidence of that wrongdoing. The principle should connect those ideas, establishing evidence of wrongdoing as a necessary part of using the word "loophole."

Answer Explanation:
The argument establishes "loophole" as implying wrongdoing, and the conclusion is that it should only be used if evidence of wrongdoing is presented. This answer connects those ideas, establishing that any "suggestion" (i.e., implication) of wrongdoing needs evidence to back it up.

Key Takeaway:
Strengthen (Principle) questions are all about connecting ideas in the premises to the judgment made in the conclusion. Additionally, note how we defined the scope here—by focusing on the conclusion. Several answer choices here mentioned editorialists, but the conclusion was just about news writers, so we could rule those answer choices out for not dealing with the conclusion.

Incorrect. The conclusion is about news writers, so this principle about editorial writers is out of scope.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of public interest in the stimulus, so this answer is out of scope.