PrepTest 112, Section 4, Question 23
When investigators discovered that the director of a(60 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AAnyone who works(16 more words not shown)
- BAnyone who knowingly(15 more words not shown)
- CAnyone who presents(31 more words not shown)
- DAnyone who lies(25 more words not shown)
- EAnyone who accepts(26 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
The director lied. The journalists failed to check. Why should those actions get the same blame?
I can see a reason to criticize journalists who publish numbers without verifying them. But that's different from saying they are just as responsible as the person who knowingly supplied false numbers. Maybe they were careless or too trusting. That still leaves the investigators needing to explain the equal-blame part of their claim.
What we’re looking for
We're asked for a principle that helps justify the investigators. So we need a rule connecting the journalists' failure to verify with responsibility at least as great as the director's. My prediction is something like: if you publish a false story as fact without checking it, you bear just as much responsibility for the consequences as the person who gave you the story. I might disagree with that rule in real life. For this question, we accept the answer's principle as valid and ask whether it supports the investigators' reasoning.
Working the answers
- A
This gives the charity director a duty to be honest. But his wrongdoing isn't the disputed comparison. We need a reason to assign the journalists as much blame as the director, and A says nothing about their responsibility. Establishing one person's obligation doesn't establish everyone else's share of the blame.
- B
The word “knowingly” matters. The journalists naively accepted the director's figures; we aren't told they knew he was lying or tried to hide the truth. B condemns people who intentionally help conceal a lie. We can't apply that rule to these journalists just because they failed to discover one.
- CCorrect
The journalists fit the rule: they presented the numbers as facts without trying to verify them, and the numbers were false. The rule then assigns them no less responsibility for the consequences than anyone else—including the director.
“No less” means at least as much. That directly supports treating the journalists as fully blameworthy alongside him, even though their conduct differed. C supplies the connection the investigators need between publishing unchecked claims and the strong comparison of responsibility in their conclusion.
- D
This compares people who lie for different purposes: advancing a career versus promoting a good cause. We aren't told the journalists knowingly lied for their careers, and we shouldn't invent that motive. The relevant difference is deliberate deception versus failure to verify. D doesn't tell us how to compare those actions.
- E
The director did accept responsibility, so part of this rule looks relevant. But E's comparison requires someone else to conceal their own wrongdoing. We aren't told the journalists did that. Naively publishing false figures isn't the same as trying to hide one's misconduct afterward. Without that missing fact, E doesn't establish the needed comparison.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.