PrepTest 127, Section 1, Question 12
Many people say that the press should not(57 more words not shown)
The argument's reasoning is vulnerable(13 more words not shown)
- Athe press can(12 more words not shown)
- Bone's having a(12 more words not shown)
- Cthe publishing of(11 more words not shown)
- Dif one has(13 more words not shown)
- Ethe press's right(11 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Where is the boundary between a private individual and a public figure? An athlete or an author might attract attention without wanting every part of life examined. That is an interesting question raised by the opening sentence, but the argument soon gives us a more direct problem.
The press has a right to publish certain stories, according to the passage. Does having that right mean it should publish them? More strongly, does it mean it has an obligation to do so?
A right can give someone a choice without requiring that choice. If I have the right to attend a public meeting, I do not thereby have a duty to attend every meeting. Likewise, granting the press permission to publish a story would not by itself show that the press must publish it.
What we’re looking for
The author crosses exactly that gap: the story is of public interest and is not libelous, so it falls within the stated right to publish; therefore the press is obligated to publish. For the flaw question, I want an answer identifying the shift from permission to obligation.
Working the answers
- A
The argument does not need to assume that the press can avoid prying. The author could accept that obtaining the story involves prying and still claim a right, or even a duty, to publish it. Whether private information can be obtained without intrusion is not the missing connection between having a right and having an obligation.
- BCorrect
“Entails” here means implies or makes necessary. The argument treats a right to publish as making publication obligatory. But permission leaves open the choice not to act, as with the right to attend a meeting. We need an additional reason to turn that permitted action into a duty.
- C
The author explicitly limits the conclusion to a story that is not libelous. That leaves open the possibility that some stories about private lives are libelous. The argument does not claim that this entire category of information is incapable of being libelous.
- D
This runs in the other direction. It starts with an obligation and concludes that a right exists. Our author starts with the right and concludes that there is an obligation. Even if every duty came with permission to perform it, that would not make every permitted action a duty.
- E
The passage places a limit on the press's right: the story must not be libelous. It does not say that the right to publish always wins against an individual's protection from libel. E removes an exception that the author expressly retains.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.