PrepTest 138, Section 4, Question 23
Libel is defined as damaging the reputation of(47 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(12 more words not shown)
- AThe absence of(17 more words not shown)
- BEven if laws(15 more words not shown)
- CIf one makes(29 more words not shown)
- DIn countries with(17 more words not shown)
- EPublic figures can(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Wouldn't protecting people from false accusations help their reputations? The author's claim initially seems to run the other way.
We're told strong libel laws make people afraid to say anything bad about public figures. From that silence, the author concludes that a good reputation can become impossible. Why would a lack of criticism have that effect?
One possibility is that audiences become suspicious when nobody is ever criticized. If everyone receives praise, perhaps people wonder whether the praise means anything or whether criticism is being suppressed. That's one route I can imagine, but the passage doesn't yet explain the connection.
What we’re looking for
The question asks for a principle supporting the argument. We need a reason that preventing negative public judgments could also prevent positive reputations.
Working the answers
- A
This concerns the absence of libel laws, whereas the argument concerns the effect of strong laws. Making a good reputation possible without those laws doesn't establish that it becomes impossible with them. Both situations could allow good reputations.
- B
Some public figures acquiring bad reputations doesn't explain why no public figure could have a good one. Good and bad reputations could exist together. B doesn't supply the connection from the suppression of criticism to the claimed loss of good reputations.
- C
This proposes an exception for sincerely believed statements. It concerns what should count as libel, not how strong libel laws affect the possibility of a good reputation. Revising the definition doesn't connect the evidence to the conclusion.
- D
Requiring proof before making negative statements doesn't explain why good reputations would disappear. It tells us a condition for criticism, while the gap concerns how the availability of criticism matters to favorable reputations.
- ECorrect
This makes good reputations depend on a contrast with other public figures who have bad reputations. On the author's account, strong laws suppress the negative statements through which that unfavorable contrast would arise. E gives that suppression a reason to interfere with good reputations too.
The idea is comparative: if nobody can stand out unfavorably, nobody can stand out favorably in the required way. That supports the conclusion through a need for contrast, rather than proving my initial guess that everyone becomes suspicious of universal praise. It doesn't say every public figure therefore has a bad reputation.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.