PrepTest 146, Section 2, Question 9
Even though she thought the informant was untrustworthy,(69 more words not shown)
The conclusion of the argument(10 more words not shown)
- AThe information that(8 more words not shown)
- BThe journalist's editor(18 more words not shown)
- CIf the information(17 more words not shown)
- DThe truth of(17 more words not shown)
- EThe informant understood,(22 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
Why would a judge or editor order the journalist to identify her source? We know the information concerns safety violations at a power plant. We haven't been given a rule connecting that subject with an order to reveal the informant.
The journalist's promise makes the situation awkward: she promised confidentiality if the information didn't turn out to be false, but she will disclose the identity if a judge or her editor orders her to. An order could therefore make her break the promise even when the informant told the truth.
What we’re looking for
To make the conclusion follow, give us a reason that one of those orders will actually come. A rule saying that information about power-plant safety triggers a judge's order would connect the fact we have to the disclosure we need. An editor's order could also provide a route; either one would be enough.
Working the answers
- A
False information could release the journalist from her stated promise, but that doesn't force her to reveal the informant. She might decide not to pursue the matter. A also doesn't establish the conclusion's claim about revealing the identity even when the information is accurate. We need a reason disclosure will occur, not just a circumstance in which the promise no longer protects the source.
- B
This restricts when the editor will issue an order. The information must be accurate and concern public safety before the editor will do so. But satisfying those requirements doesn't guarantee an order. The editor could receive accurate public-safety information and still decline to demand disclosure. We need a rule that actually triggers the order.
- CCorrect
The information concerns safety at the power plant, so this rule guarantees that a judge will order disclosure. The passage tells us the journalist will comply with such an order. Put those steps together and she will reveal the informant's identity, even if the information is accurate. We don't also need the editor to issue an order; the judge's order already does the work.
- D
If someone wants to verify the information, D says public identification is required. But the argument doesn't establish that the journalist will undertake that verification no matter what. She might leave the information unverified rather than disclose the source. D therefore doesn't guarantee the action the conclusion predicts.
- E
The informant's understanding doesn't make a judge issue an order. The informant might have known about that possibility while no judge ever acted. We need to establish that the event triggering disclosure will happen, not that someone knew how the journalist would respond if it did.
More Sufficient Assumption questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Sufficient Assumption questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.