#21 - Letter to the editor: when your newspaper reported the

[cascott15]

Two things,
First with regard to A,
Who are we to say whether or not testimony is “evidence of extraordinarily high standard”
Yes it makes sense it’s not, but what gives us that right to make that assessment

Secondly,
What’s wrong with B?
I imagine intermediate source is not stated nor alluded to in stimulus and so is wrong, at least that is the explanation I read elsewhere.
But to me, isn’t Mr Honlan the intermediate source here? I mean, he saw it, and the newspaper published it, doesn’t that make the newspaper not the true source, i.e. there is intermediate source—that is, Mr Holan?

That was my thinking as well. To me, B is saying the letter writer is wrong to blindly accept Mr. Holan's (an intermediary source) claim, which is incongruent with the letter's argument.

I also was skeptical of A because it forces us to make a judgement about the article through the description provided by an opposing argument. It just seems rather odd to me that we're reading other peoples' interpretations of writing.

[Claire Horan]

Hi Lanereuden and CAScott15,

As you allude to, common sense would tell you that the testimonial of one person is not incredibly strong evidence. But I understand your concern with LSAC forcing you to make a judgment that one testimonial by a trusted member of a community does not constitute "evidence of an extraordinarily high standard." That's a fair concern, but notice how strong the language is! "Extraordinarily high" is used because if LSAC used weaker language, such as "credible evidence" or "good evidence," testmakers would justifiably worry that you would not feel comfortable saying a testimonial was credible or good evidence or not. So the very strong language should have made you more comfortable with your answer.

But, if you are not convinced by that and would rather not risk developing a habit or making judgments where you shouldn't you can solve this problem by eliminating answers that are clearly wrong. If B was the only other contender for both of you, you could have gotten the question correct by parsing B more carefully.

It says:
"one should be skeptical of claims" (so far so good because this conflicts with the argument in the letter)
based on testimonial evidence (Hanlon's statement of what he observed)
that is acquired only through an intermediary source. (Here's where B goes wrong. Hanlon would be a direct source of his own observation, so he is not an intermediary source. The newspaper is the "one [who] should be skeptical of claims", so the newspaper is not an intermediary source. No intermediary source is mentioned at all, so this answer choice should be eliminated.

The principle in C doesn't apply well to the stimulus because we don't know if the newspaper has trusted Hanlon as a source. Regardless, the principle would not conflict with the letter because it advocates continuing to trust the source.

The principle in D deals with what Hanlon should or should not do. Since the letter criticizes the newspaper, a conflicting principle needs to focus on what the newspaper should or should not do.

Finally, E addresses whether a newspaper should publish a report. But the letter does not address whether the newspaper was right or wrong to publish the report; rather, the letter criticizes the skeptical tone the newspaper took when they published the report.

When in doubt, rule out the wrong answers. If you think they are all wrong, choose the one you think is least wrong.

Good luck!