PrepTest 108, Section 3, Question 1
Despite the best efforts of journalists to be(45 more words not shown)
Each of the following is(8 more words not shown)
- AJournalists do not(9 more words not shown)
- BIt is imperative(7 more words not shown)
- CObjectivity in reporting(8 more words not shown)
- DTrained editors are(9 more words not shown)
- EJournalists' reporting that(10 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I can believe that journalists' own views sometimes slip into their work, even when they try to be objective. People notice different things, choose different words, and approach a story with different expectations.
But what should follow from that? We shouldn't immediately give up on objectivity just because achieving it is difficult. An editor might help a reporter notice something the reporter missed.
Still, why must the reporting be as objective as possible? Imagine a publication that openly sets out to advocate a position. The author needs to establish objectivity as the goal before insisting on a process designed to achieve it. The possibility of bias alone doesn't tell us which goal a publication should pursue.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for a necessary assumption, with an EXCEPT. Four choices will identify commitments the argument needs, and one won't. My initial concern is the unstated importance of objectivity. As we test the answers, ask whether the author has to accept each claim for this recommendation to make sense.
Working the answers
- A
The argument needs some bias to remain for the editor to address. If journalists already eliminated all the biases that entered their reporting, the problem used to justify this extra review would be gone. The recommendation relies on the journalists' own efforts not completely solving it.
- B
This supplies the goal we questioned. The author recommends editorial review as imperative because it would make reporting as objective as possible. That reasoning needs the pursuit of maximum objectivity to matter in the way B says. Without that commitment, a possible way to increase objectivity doesn't establish an imperative.
- C
The argument connects journalists' biases with a loss of objectivity. If those biases did not undermine objectivity, removing them would not serve the stated purpose. This connection may seem natural, but it is still part of the reasoning the author relies on.
- D
The proposed reviewers need to be capable of detecting at least some of the bias they are supposed to remove. Otherwise, why insist that they review the reporting for that purpose? D doesn't require editors to find every bias or to be perfect. It provides the minimum ability the recommendation needs.
- ECorrect
Editors could take a piece of biased reporting seriously and still recognize that it needs revision. Taking it seriously might even lead them to examine it carefully and work to improve it.
The argument needs objectivity to be a goal and editorial review to help achieve it. It does not need editors to dismiss every report that falls short of that goal. E adds a claim about their attitude toward the work that the recommendation does not depend on.
More Necessary Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Necessary Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.