LR Question 14 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Journalist: It is unethical for journalists to lie-to…
QUESTION TYPE: Method of Reasoning
CONCLUSION: It’s wrong to say that withholding information is as bad as lying.
REASONING: Lying gives people wrong beliefs. Withholding information only allows a new false belief to form.
ANALYSIS: The journalist makes a somewhat valid distinction. Withholding info does seem less bad than outright lying.
The method of argument is to show a distinction between two concepts and show that one (withholding info) is ok based on that distinction.
___________
- CORRECT. This matches. See especially the sentence that starts with “however”. The journalist says that critics fail to see the difference between lying and merely withholding information. Both are similar, but this key difference means only lying is wrong.
- Not so. This describes a situation where others are attacking a distinction. But in this argument, the author is criticizing those who didn’t see a distinction at all. The author makes a new argument that there is a distinction that everyone missed.
- The journalist defines two terms: lying, and withholding information.
- Gad, this is complex. It has nothing to do with the passage. I’ve made a parallel argument below to show what this answer would look like.
Example of answer: You say it’s always right to tell the truth. This therefore proves you should have handed your brother over to the police.
But in some cases, the truth can kill people from shock. For instance, my uncle Harris died when he learned his son gained his fortune by fraud. Therefore, the truth is not always good, and that principle cannot support your argument that you should turn in your brother. - The journalist didn’t give examples of when withholding information is allowed and when it isn’t. So there was no clarification of this moral principle by examples.
More Resources for Method of Reasoning Questions
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Method of Reasoning questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers method of reasoning questions.
Your explanation is entirely inconsistent. Why should the usage of the word “cases” being compared in choice E imply usage of examples while the usage of “cases” being compared in choice A does not? This is inadequate, sloppy, and unhelpful for prep. Surprising, really.
A better explanation of E would probably include a discussion of whether the journalist is in fact “defending a moral principle” rather than commenting on it.
This isn’t correct, actually.
The journalist is defending the following moral principle: “lying is wrong, including witholding information”
There is no case given where that doesn’t apply. So E doesn’t match.