PrepTest 108, Section 3, Question 20
Sarah: Reporters, by allotting time to some events(49 more words not shown)
Sarah and Ramon's remarks provide(18 more words not shown)
- AReporters actually do(8 more words not shown)
- BReporters should exercise(9 more words not shown)
- CReporters' primary responsibility(11 more words not shown)
- DReporters should not(9 more words not shown)
- EReporting on certain(9 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Choosing what to cover is already a judgment. If a reporter gives time to baseball instead of an immigration story, that choice tells us something about what the reporter considers newsworthy. Sarah calls that a form of interpretation, even if every reported fact is accurate.
Ramon's first response sounds like disagreement: reporters should never interpret the news. But wait. Sarah said what reporters do. Ramon is saying what they should do. Those claims aren't automatically opposites. Reporters could do something Ramon thinks they shouldn't.
His next sentence shows the deeper problem. Once reporters select a story, he wants them to relay the facts without tainting them. That treats selection as something they can do before the objectionable interpretation begins. Sarah's point is that selection itself already counts as interpretation.
What we’re looking for
So I'd predict a disagreement about what “interpreting” includes. Does choosing some events for coverage over others qualify? Sarah says yes. Ramon treats that choice as compatible with reporting without interpretation. Look for that narrow dispute, rather than a broad claim about every duty reporters have.
Working the answers
- A
Sarah would agree, but we don't have a clear opposite answer from Ramon. Saying reporters should never interpret doesn't tell us that they actually refrain from doing so. He could think they interpret every report and wish they would stop.
That's why the difference between what happens and what should happen matters. A asks about what reporters actually do, and Ramon's rule doesn't settle that.
- B
Sarah says reporters exercise judgment when selecting stories. She doesn't say whether they should. Explaining an unavoidable or familiar part of a process is not the same as endorsing it. We can't assign Sarah the required position on this recommendation.
- C
Ramon emphasizes an obligation to relay facts, but Sarah doesn't discuss which responsibility should come first. Her point about selecting stories would still make sense whether keeping people informed were the primary duty or one of several duties. We don't have opposing positions on this ranking.
- D
Again, Sarah makes no recommendation about what reporters should do. She describes how their choices constitute interpretation. That doesn't tell us she wants equal time for every event or believes they should stop choosing between stories. This answer adds a policy position she never takes.
- ECorrect
This captures the difference in what the speakers count as interpretation. For Sarah, allotting time to certain events rather than others is itself interpretive. The judgment is present in the selection.
Ramon separates the selection from the reporting he wants afterward: once a story is deemed newsworthy, the reporter should relay untainted facts and avoid interpretation. He therefore treats selecting a story as something that can happen without the interpretation he rejects. They are talking past each other because Sarah includes that selection in the very term Ramon is using more narrowly.
More Disagreement questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Disagreement questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.