#9 - The journalistic practice of fabricating remarks after

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C)

This argument is flawed because it creates a False Dilemma.

The argument attempts to justify the practice of fabricating remarks by asserting it "avoids the more serious misrepresentation that would occur" otherwise. However, the argument does not establish prior to making this assertion that quoting an interviewee's exact words necessarily results in a "more serious misrepresentation." Perhaps there are other options, such as printing the exact quote and then following it with a skilled writer's distillation of the ideas expressed by the interviewee. By assuming away all other options in order to justify its conclusion by forcing the reader to accept the lesser evil, the argument creates a False Dilemma.

Note that the sitmulus hints at this as the reasoning error when it states that the practice of fabricating remarks "has been decried as a form of unfair misrepresentation." We generally consider journalistic misrepresentations to be inherently unfair, and so this description of the current misrepresentation as "unfair" seems redundant. Already, the argument is attempting to set up a False Dilemma, in which it limits us to only two options, each of which is a misrepresentation. Clearly, the argument suggests, when an "unfair misrepresentation" will certainly occur otherwise, it is "entirely defensible" to choose a less serious misrepresentation.

Armed with our prephrase, that the argument creates a False Dilemma by assuming without support that only the two stated options exist, we can head to the answer choices. Answer choice (C) describes this reasoning flaw. An "adequate" defense is one that is sufficient, and that language is synonymous with the wording used in the stimulus, "entirely defensible." The argument views the defense offered as sufficient because it assumes away all other possibilities. Answer choice (C) is correct.

consider why the remaining answer choices are incorrect. Recall that an incorrect answer choice to a Flaw in the Reasoning question will either fail the Fact Test, because the stated error did not occur in the stimulus, or it will describe something that appeared in the stimulus but did not constitute a reasoning error.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice describes a Source Argument ("undermining the personal authority of those who made the charge"). Since the argument does not include a source argument, answer choice (A) fails the Fact Test.

Answer choice (B): This answer choice describes an Appeal to Authority. For this answer choice to be correct, the argument must assert that because journalists are esteemed we should not criticize their practice. Since this argument does not make that claim, answer choice (B) fails the Fact Test.

Take a moment to note the use of the word "prestige" in this answer choice. As often occurs on the LSAT, this word has more than one level of meaning, each of which is helpful in understanding why answer choice (B) describes an Appeal to Authority. In the common usage, "prestige" has a positive aspect, and we tend to respect and heed the advice of those in prestigious positions. However, the word "prestige" derives from a Latin noun meaning "delusion" or "illusion," and from a Latin verb meaning to "blindfold," "dazzle," or "confuse." This same root gives us the word "prestidigitation," meaning "sleight of hand;" think of the 2006 movie "The Prestige," starring Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale as rival magicians. So, to reach a conclusion based on the prestige of the speaker is a reasoning error because you allow the brilliance of that person's reputation to blind you to the substance of the argument.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. See discussion above.

Answer choice (D): This answer choice fails the Fact Test, because the argument did not conclude that the practice was "right," only that it was "entirely defensible." Those terms are not synonymous. Something that is necessary may be the "right decision" under the circumstances, but that does not mean that the decision is "right" in an absolute sense, that it is just or virtuous.

Answer choice (E) This answer choice also fails the Fact Test, because the argument does not contain an admission made by an opponent. Note that this answer choice describes an Error in the Use of Evidence, specifically the assumption that the presence of some evidence in support of a position (i.e., "a practice is sometimes appropriate") proves that position to be true (i.e., "that practice is never inappropriate").

[bli2016]

Hi, I was wondering why D is incorrect because I thought the last sentence (the one that mentions how the practice would avoid more serious misrepresentation that would occur otherwise) was signifying that the practice was necessary. Is it because the previous sentence says that people's actual spoken remarks "rarely" convey their ideas clearly, as opposed to "never"?

[bli2016]

I just reread the explanation for why D is wrong and I understand how the first part of the answer choice is clearly wrong now, but am still curious about the "necessary" part. Did that occur in the stimulus? Thanks.

[Adam Tyson]

It did not occur in the stimulus, bli2016, and that's a big part of why answer D is wrong! Since the argument never claimed that anything was necessary, and answer D brings up that claim, it fails the "Fact Test" by bringing up something that is not supported by the facts in the stimulus. Our author never said, or even implied, that the practice in question was necessary, only that it was "defensible". Big difference there! It's the difference between "I can see why that might be okay" and "that was absolutely required".

[RJF]

Hello,

Regarding incorrect answer choice E):
The description for why E) is incorrect indicates that the author does not offer an "admission", but I understood the "opponent's admission that a practice is sometimes appropriate..." to be implied within the stimulus (very clearly, based on the premises and conclusion). Why is this not the case?

Thank you.

[Adam Tyson]

I'm going to have to toss this back to you, RJF, and ask why you believe that the stimulus implies that the people who oppose this particular practice (the ones who decry it as being unfair misrepresentation) admit that it is sometimes appropriate. I don't see it, implied or explicit, no matter how hard I try. The author thinks it is appropriate, obviously, because he is arguing in favor of it, but what evidence is there that the opposition would ever, even once, say that it is okay?

In my opinion, that answer is wrong because the opponent never, explicitly or implicitly, admits anything of the sort.

Take another look, and let us know if you think we've missed it!

[andriana.caban]

Hi! Please see the below questions written in purple text.

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (C)

This argument is flawed because it creates a False Dilemma.

The argument attempts to justify the practice of fabricating remarks by asserting it "avoids the more serious misrepresentation that would occur" otherwise. However, the argument does not establish prior to making this assertion that quoting an interviewee's exact words necessarily results in a "more serious misrepresentation." Perhaps there are other options, such as printing the exact quote and then following it with a skilled writer's distillation of the ideas expressed by the interviewee. By assuming away all other options in order to justify its conclusion by forcing the reader to accept the lesser evil, the argument creates a False Dilemma.

Note that the sitmulus hints at this as the reasoning error when it states that the practice of fabricating remarks "has been decried as a form of unfair misrepresentation." We generally consider journalistic misrepresentations to be inherently unfair, and so this description of the current misrepresentation as "unfair" seems redundant. Already, the argument is attempting to set up a False Dilemma, in which it limits us to only two options, each of which is a misrepresentation. [What are the author's two options?] Clearly, the argument suggests, when an "unfair misrepresentation" will certainly occur otherwise, it is "entirely defensible" to choose a less serious misrepresentation.

The argument views the defense offered as sufficient because it assumes away all other possibilities. I'm still a little bit confused - how does the author assume away all other possibilities? Perhaps I'm not understanding the stimulus correctly or not understanding what 'assuming away all other possibilities looks like? Is there any way that you can provide a simpler example? Answer choice (C) is correct.

consider why the remaining answer choices are incorrect Honestly, I knew answer choice (D)-which is what I chose-was incorrect. The author never assumes that the practice is necessary. In fact, I eliminated all of the answer choices and wanted to pick (C) but convinced myself that couldn't be the answer because the author didn't raise 'several possible alternatives' to the practice?. Recall that an incorrect answer choice to a Flaw in the Reasoning question will either fail the Fact Test, because the stated error did not occur in the stimulus, or it will describe something that appeared in the stimulus but did not constitute a reasoning error.

[Jeremy Press]

Hi Andriana,

Here are the two options the author considers: first is the option the journalist prefers, that journalists rephrase interviewees' exact words to more accurately capture their ideas and then put that rephrasing in quotations. Second is the option for journalists to quote "people's exact words" but leave "their ideas only partially expressed" (in other words, just put what the interviewee said in quotes and let those exact words stand by themselves without clarifying what the interviewee actually had in mind).

Here's how the author assumes away other possibilities: in the final sentence, the author uses just one premise (the "since" part of the sentence) in which the author states that one possibility [the second option described above] is worse than another possibility [the first option described above] to try to prove the conclusion that the first option is "entirely defensible." But to call the first option entirely defensible on that one single ground, the author must be assuming that there is no other way to do things. If there were another way to do things, then the first option could not be "entirely defensible" solely by referring to the second option's deficiencies. That's what the original post means by assuming away other possibilities.

As to your third question, while the author does not directly refer to several possible alternatives, it's up to you to see that there might be other ways that journalists could handle the problem described in the stimulus. [That's always the most difficult part of noticing a False Dilemma flaw, by the way--you have to independently see that there are other possibilities.] For example, a journalist might just decide not to use quotation marks at all and might opt instead simply to describe the ideas the interviewee expressed during the interview. Or, a journalist might use quotation marks to convey the interviewee's exact words, but then might also describe what the interviewee must have meant by those exact words without putting this extra description in quotation marks.

I hope this helps!

Jeremy