PrepTest 136, Section 2, Question 15
Commentator: Many social critics claim that contemporary journalists'(70 more words not shown)
The reasoning in the commentator's(15 more words not shown)
- Awidespread cynicism is(6 more words not shown)
- Bcynicism about the(14 more words not shown)
- Cthe work of(10 more words not shown)
- Dany accurate description(7 more words not shown)
- Ecynicism of this(17 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Suppose a wealthy person pays for a public project and a journalist immediately asks what selfish advantage the donor expects. That's the kind of cynicism under discussion: looking for greed behind apparently generous behavior. “Mendacity” means dishonesty.
The critics say this reporting hurts society by convincing people that success always goes with greed and dishonesty. The commentator rejects that criticism because journalists have always been cynical. My first question is whether their cynicism has become more intense. But the passage blocks that response: today's journalists are, if anything, more restrained.
Could the same attitude reach more people now? Even restrained reporting might have a wider effect if its audience or distribution had grown. That is one possibility I'd investigate. Being an old practice doesn't settle what effect the practice has today.
What we’re looking for
The flaw question targets the commentator's denial of harm. Keep that direction clear: we need a possibility showing why longstanding cynicism could still contribute to a problem.
Working the answers
- A
If widespread cynicism benefits society, that would fit the commentator's rejection of the critics' complaint. It doesn't expose the gap in the argument that cynicism cannot be contributing to harm. This answer points in the wrong direction.
- B
This connects having more information with being more cynical. It doesn't tell us what that cynicism does to society's well-being. Even an understandable response to information could have a harmful effect, or a beneficial one; B leaves the relevant effect unresolved.
- C
Journalists might write cynically without personally believing what they write. Readers could still be influenced by the published message. Whether the attitude is genuine doesn't establish whether its effects on society are harmless.
- D
Accurate criticism could still have a harmful social effect. The issue isn't whether selfish behavior exists or whether journalists describe it truthfully. It's whether the reporting can contribute to the alleged harm. D doesn't explain why the historical comparison fails.
- ECorrect
This takes a simpler route than the possibility of a wider audience: perhaps this kind of cynicism has always caused harm. Then its presence in earlier journalism provides no defense at all. Today's journalists could be more restrained and still contribute to the same kind of problem. The commentator treats the practice's long history as evidence against harm without ruling out a long history of harmful effects.
More Flaw questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Flaw questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.