PrepTest 142, Section 4, Question 14
Journalist: It is unethical for journalists to lie—to(68 more words not shown)
The journalist argues(1 more words not shown)
- Apointing out a(22 more words not shown)
- Bdefending what the(15 more words not shown)
- Cdefining a concept(17 more words not shown)
- Dappealing to a(16 more words not shown)
- Eclarifying and defending(19 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Saying something false and leaving something unsaid aren't the same action. But does that make withholding information ethical? Not necessarily. A failure to correct someone's mistaken belief might still be wrong for another reason.
The journalist's narrower point is that critics shouldn't simply treat withholding information like lying. The critics point to a similarity: both can involve intentional deception. The journalist points to a difference: lying actively encourages a false belief, while withholding information can leave an existing false belief uncorrected.
What we’re looking for
For the method question, we don't need to settle every ethical issue ourselves. Describe the move the journalist makes: use that difference to challenge a conclusion drawn from the cases' similarity. Our remaining concern about whether silence could be wrong doesn't change how this response is constructed.
Working the answers
- ACorrect
The two cases are lying and withholding relevant information. The critics use their shared feature of deception to extend the judgment 'unethical' from lying to withholding. The journalist challenges that extension by distinguishing actively encouraging a false belief from failing to prevent one. A captures both the comparison being challenged and the way the author challenges it.
- B
The journalist uses a distinction to answer an objection. The passage doesn't identify that distinction as controversial and then defend it through a clear example. It focuses on why the difference matters to the critics' comparison, rather than establishing the legitimacy of the distinction itself.
- C
The passage does define lying, so the beginning sounds promising. But the rest doesn't fit: the journalist separates withholding information from lying instead of arguing that every case meets the definition. Check the whole description of the method, not just its first phrase.
- D
A counterexample would show an instance in which the critics' general ethical principle fails. The journalist instead questions whether these two kinds of conduct should be treated alike on the basis of their shared feature. The response doesn't establish a particular instance of intentional deception that is ethically acceptable.
- E
The comparison makes this tempting. But the journalist is answering an argument that extends the judgment about lying to withholding information. The main move isn't to establish or defend a general moral rule through contrasting cases; it's to challenge that extension by pointing out a relevant difference. A states that argumentative purpose directly.
More Strategy of Argument questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strategy of Argument questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.