PrepTest 122, Section 4, Question 4
Essayist: Politicians deserve protection from a prying press.(64 more words not shown)
Each of the following, if(6 more words not shown)
- AThe press is(9 more words not shown)
- BReporting on politicians'(11 more words not shown)
- CMuch writing on(10 more words not shown)
- DIn recent elections,(18 more words not shown)
- EPoliticians' personality flaws(8 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
I don't like the idea that politicians deserve protection just because scrutiny is unpleasant. Reporting can tell voters something they need to know.
But the essayist gives a more serious concern: intrusive coverage might drive talented people away from public office. Imagine someone who would serve well deciding the job isn't worth having every old mistake picked apart. If this reporting also focuses on tiny flaws unrelated to the work, I can see a reason to call it trivial.
What we’re looking for
That is the concern I'd want supported: does the coverage actually keep good people from entering or advancing in politics? We're asked for the exception among four strengtheners, so four choices will help the case for stopping this journalism. One won't. Keep the claim about trivial coverage in view without assuming every private detail is automatically worthless to voters.
Working the answers
- A
Inaccurate reporting creates another reason for concern. The intrusion can damage reputations without even giving readers dependable information. That makes the case for halting this kind of coverage stronger, even though the essayist's original emphasis was on its effects rather than its accuracy.
- B
This supplies a cost to voters: attention goes to private details instead of more important campaign issues. That supports the description of the journalism as trivial and gives another reason to stop it.
- C
Rumors supplied by opponents may turn the reporting into a vehicle for political attacks instead of useful scrutiny. This doesn't prove that every rumor is false. Still, it raises another reason to doubt the value of the coverage and supports the essayist's concern about reporters hunting for personal flaws.
- D
This gives concrete support for the concern we identified. The best local politicians are declining to seek national office because of intrusive coverage. Now we have evidence that the reporting actually discourages capable people from pursuing those roles, not merely a suggestion that it might.
- ECorrect
If personality flaws affect job performance, reporting on them can have value for voters. That challenges the essayist's treatment of the flaws as inconsequential and the coverage as trivial. It doesn't establish that every private detail deserves publication, but it supplies a reason not to dismiss this reporting wholesale.
We want the answer that fails to strengthen. E goes further and pushes against a premise of the argument, which makes it the exception.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.