PrepTest 159, Section 3, Question 24

What we’re looking for

Working the answers

• A

  This establishes where McFinton's essay appeared, which is a necessary starting point for applying this rule. But where did Wallace's criticism appear, and was it unfair? If it appeared elsewhere and was fair, the rule wouldn't establish the claimed right to reply. A supplies only part of what we need.

• B

  Now we know Wallace's criticism appeared in Speculator's Digest, but we don't know that McFinton's essay appeared there. The rule concerns an author responding in a magazine that published the original article. Knowing where the criticism appeared doesn't supply that separate fact.

• C

  McFinton's essay appeared in the right magazine. Wallace's criticism appeared in other magazines, but C doesn't say it was unfair. Nor does it say the criticism also appeared in Speculator's Digest. We therefore can't complete either route: same-magazine criticism or unfair criticism elsewhere.

• D
  Correct

  Both the original essay and the harsh criticism appeared in Speculator's Digest. That meets the first route through the principle. McFinton published there, Wallace criticized the essay there, and McFinton should therefore be allowed to respond there. We don't also need to establish unfairness when the criticism appeared in the same magazine.

• E

  This combines two facts about Wallace's criticism: it appeared in Speculator's Digest and was unfair. But neither fact tells us that McFinton's original essay appeared there. That common starting condition is still missing. The extra unfairness detail can't replace it.