Q19 - Marcus: For most ethical

[clairenlee]

I found the question stem a bit confusing. Could you clarify what the question is precisely asking? Is it simply asking what Anita is assuming? And as for the answer choices, I'm having a real difficult time pinpointing what precisely is wrong with the answer choice B. Isn't B also necessary for Anita's conclusion? Thanks!

[noah]

First, take a look at how I edited your post title. If you post again (and I hope you will), please use that nomenclature - it makes it easier for us and for future users.

This is a tricky question. #19 is asking, as you suggest, what must be assumed for Anita's argument to be valid.

Part of the key here is boiling down Marcus' argument. His conclusion is that traditional ethics are generally adequate. The support is an example of applying this code.

Anita replies by pointing out a typical situation in which the ethical code is not adequate. The example is the apparently typical situation of a journalist struggling to decide whether a piece information is newsworthy.

The core of her argument is thus: Journalists struggle to decide if info is newsworthy --> traditional ethical code is inadequate.

The gap here is whether that struggle is an ethical one. Perhaps it's just a legal issue, or a stylistic one. (A) establishes that the struggle is indeed ethical. If you negate it (the quandary is not an ethical dilemma), the argument doesn't makes sense.

(B) is tempting, but this answer is about the ethics of releasing newsworthy information - so whether the information is newsworthy has already been established. The core of the argument is about news for which that has not been established. This is subtly but definitively out of scope!

(C) can be eliminated as it involves degree. The most serious?

(D) is too extreme. Neither Marcus nor Anita are suggesting that every situation is covered by an adequate code - just that most are.

(E) is similar to (D). Too extreme.

Does that help?

[esmail.dana]

Hi,
I just had two questions:

Firstly, why did you negate answer choice A? I thought this was a sufficient assumption question; aren't we only supposed to negate necessary assumptions?

Second, if our assumption is that the peice of information can raise ethical dilemmas for journalists--> therefore the guidance is inadequate, Marcus only said that traditional ethics worked only for MOST ethical dilemmas. So Anita still couldn't conclude that the guidance is inadequate, because the trad ethics isn't supposed to solve everything anyway.

I'd appreciate any feedback!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Firstly, why did you negate answer choice A? I thought this was a sufficient assumption question; aren't we only supposed to negate necessary assumptions?

Tricky one! Look for language that implies sufficiency or necessity when you're approaching assumption questions. This question asks for what would "have to be assumed." When something has to be assumed, it's necessary to the argument.

Second, if our assumption is that the peice of information can raise ethical dilemmas for journalists--> therefore the guidance is inadequate, Marcus only said that traditional ethics worked only for MOST ethical dilemmas. So Anita still couldn't conclude that the guidance is inadequate, because the trad ethics isn't supposed to solve everything anyway

Great question! Notice in Anita's response she says, "but, in the typical case, where a journalist has some information but is in a quandary about whether it is important." The word typical is very important. It connotes the usual or most frequent experience. So Anita is saying that in most cases, journalists are not sure whether the information they have is newsworthy. That's why Anita's statement would challenge Marcus' claim about traditional journalistic ethics. We would need to assume answer choice (A) though!!!

Does that answer your questions?

[esmail.dana]

Oh I see. That makes sense; if in most cases people are unsure about something that could raise an ethical dilemma then traditional ethics would be inadequate.

For future reference though, when we are faced with two speaker stimuli like this one, should the correct necessary assumption when negated only weaken Anita's argument or weaken Marcus's too? I would think it should weaken Anita's because that's the argument the question asks us to look at, right?

Thank you for the prompt reply earlier!

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Exactly - it should just undermine Anita's!

Since Anita is attempting to undermine Marcus, if Anita's argument assumed something to be true, but then it turned out that it was not true, that would undermine Anita's argument. At the same time, while that wouldn't prove Marcus' argument, it would make it stronger.

[zagreus77]

I don't see how I must assume a. I picked it, because it was the only plausible choice left.

Specifically, Anita argues that in the typical case where a journalist is is a quandry, the general claim made by Marcus (if a story is newsworthy, publish it with no delays) is inadequate.

So if it were the case that the issues of how to classify info as newsworthy really did raise ethical dilemmas it would be relevant, though I can't say necessary, if classification issues themselves were themselves ethical issues. But the argument could work with the same premises and conclusion and validly reach the conclusion if all that were presumed as necessary is that the resolution of ethical dilemmas merely involves, not raises, determining whether a piece of info is newsworthy.

For example, If we have the story that Angelina Jolie is cheating on Brad Pitt, and I have an ethical dilemma about whether to print it or not On the one hand, I don't want to invade someone's privacy; on the other, she's a public figure, ect. Determining whether whether it's a newsworthy isn't the ethical dilemma-- under the material given -- it is how I would resolve the ethical dilemma. For Anita's argument to have any force, it would thus be necessary, not sufficient, that determining whether a story was newsworthy is relevant to resolving an ethical dilemma, not that the question of newsworthiness itself raised ethical dilemmas.

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

Specifically, Anita argues that in the typical case where a journalist is is a quandry, the general claim made by Marcus (if a story is newsworthy, publish it with no delays) is inadequate.

The guidance Anita refers to is actually whether traditional journalistic ethics is clear, adequate, and essentially correct.

Anita says "hey, how do you know whether the information is newsworthy?" So the guidance is not adequate. If in the typical case, the journalist is uncertain whether the information is newsworthy, the journalist is uncertain what do with it. But how do we know this is an issue that falls under traditional journalistic ethics? We need to assume that making a determination of newsworthiness can be raise ethical dilemmas.

Does that answer your question?

[zagreus77]

Specifically, Anita argues that in the typical case where a journalist is is a quandry, the general claim made by Marcus (if a story is newsworthy, publish it with no delays) is inadequate.

The guidance Anita refers to is actually whether traditional journalistic ethics is clear, adequate, and essentially correct.

Anita says "hey, how do you know whether the information is newsworthy?" So the guidance is not adequate. If in the typical case, the journalist is uncertain whether the information is newsworthy, the journalist is uncertain what do with it. But how do we know this is an issue that falls under traditional journalistic ethics? We need to assume that making a determination of newsworthiness can be raise ethical dilemmas.

Does that answer your question?

Thanks for the reply, Matt. I agree that the general claim that Marcus makes is as you described -- it's given in the question stem. I misspoke on that point. I was just filing in the detail that Marcus provides as an application of the claim, and it is this application that Anita responds to directly. The question stem is asking us to go beyond Anita's argument to support a more expansive claim using her statements to support the argument that his general claim ( that for most ethical dilemmas journalists face, traditional J ethics is clear, adequate and correct) is incorrect.

Still, this issue, though important, is not completely responsive to the essence of my question. As I said, and as you stated, we would need to assume that the determination of newsworthiness can be raised by ethical dilemmas -- but that is not what answer choice a says. It says, "whether a piece of information is or is not newsworthy can raise ethical dilemmas for journalists." This is a stronger claim than we need. As I argued above, the claim can be negated without preventing us from properly concluding based on Anita's statements that Marcus's general claim is false. Again, I agree that the statement that determination of newsworthiness can be raised by ethical dilemmas is necessary for the the the conclusion to be drawn, and as it is not stated, it must therefore be assumed. But this is a far cry from the statement given in answer choice a.

I know that in almost all cases the correct answer on the LSAT is damn near airtight when properly understood. I believe this is a rare exception.

[schmid215]

I'm still not sure I understand why the word "typical" in Anita's response accounts for "most" in Marcus's argument. I understand that "typical" means frequent, and that if a principle that is supposed to resolve "most cases" is typically inapplicable, then the argument for its being able to solve most cases is invalid, but aren't ethical dilemmas distinguished by the distinct set of moral principles they concern, and not the different particular sets of circumstances in which they (given sets of moral principles) could present themselves? In other words, even though I may have to decide in several different situations whether or not something is newsworthy, am I not facing the same ethical dilemma in each of the situations?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

aren't ethical dilemmas distinguished by the distinct set of moral principles they concern, and not the different particular sets of circumstances in which they (given sets of moral principles) could present themselves? In other words, even though I may have to decide in several different situations whether or not something is newsworthy, am I not facing the same ethical dilemma in each of the situations?

I see the distinction you're drawing, but I read the argument as each time the journalist is confronted with a choice, they have a unique ethical dilemma in front of them. The question over whether to publish or not may be the same, but the dilemma the journalist faces is current present choice at hand.

That's how I read it, but I'd love to hear from others if they can prove otherwise.

[lhermary]

I guessed E on this one. I think I figured out why it is wrong now. The question stem states that 'it would have to be assumed that'. This means we are looking for a necessary condition. E would be right if we were looking for a sufficient assumption.

Is this right?

Thanks

[WaltGrace1983]

This is a tough one! I want to dig deeper into it so, to make myself do so, I am going to post my own explanation. Hopefully it helps!

Marcus: For most ethical dilemmas, journalistic ethics is clear, adequate, and essentially correct.

Anita: When a journalist is in a quandary about what constitutes "newsworthy" information, this guidance (for ethical dilemmas) is inadequate

So Anita is telling Marcus that this guidance doesn't work for when a journalist is unsure about whether or not something is "newsworthy." Thus, the main assumption is that being or not being "newsworthy" is actually relevant to the "guidance" - or perhaps that the "guidance" is relevant to being "newsworthy."

I guess you could say that Anita is assuming that this "ethical guidance" actually applies to quandaries about whether or not something is "newsworthy." If it doesn't, then why would Anita bring it up?

(B) This is very close to being correct. However, all we need to assume is that being "newsworthy" is merely relevant. We don't need to assume the specifics. Perhaps bringing something in that is "newsworthy" is always correct or perhaps it is always wrong. Either way, all we need to do is assume that being "newsworthy" is relevant.

(C) "Most serious" is much too strong. It doesn't need to be the "most serious" - it does, however, need to be an ethical dilemma.

(D) This is basically saying that "an adequate system of journalistic ethics needs to solve all ethical dilemmas." Perhaps this is true. However, the real question is..."is being 'newsworthy' relevant to ethics?"

(E) This is much too strong. "Every case?" That is far too much to be a necessary assumption, in this case. However, I do agree with the poster above. I think (E) is indeed sufficient IF we assume that deciding if something is "newsworthy" is indeed a "professional decision." I think you could totally make that argument without problem.

(A) is right because it shows that being newsworthy is actually relevant. It is as simple as that!

[WaltGrace1983]

I also have a question about this doozy of a question. So Anita is assuming that "newsworthy" has something to do with "ethical guidance," i.e. that "newsworthy" is in fact relevant to "ethics."

Now for (B), it is wrong (I do believe) because it is too specific. We just need to know that "newsworthy" is relevant to ethics. However, we don't need to assume that bringing in something newsworthy is wrong - it could very well be that brining in something "~newsworthy" is actually what is wrong. However, wouldn't we actually need to assume that "bringing in something that is either newsworthy or ~newsworthy is wrong?" I guess this is just getting to the point of relevance so maybe this discussion is all hearsay. Either way, I hope you see what I am saying. Could (B) be phrased as "there are circumstances in which it would be ethically wrong for a journalist to go to the press with something that is or isn't newsworthy." Clearly, that is the weirdest answer choice ever but still, I think there is some truth to it, no?

I'm really sorry if this is just stupid analysis on my part, I just feel like correcting wrong answer choices helps me to understand why the right ones are right and why the wrong ones are wrong.

(D) is also another interesting one I think. However, (D) doesn't actually affect the argument because we have NO IDEA if being or not being "newsworthy" is actually a matter of ethics. That is why (D) is wrong, right? Because it doesn't affect the argument without that critical necessary assumption.

You guys and girls are so awesome. When I get done with this beast of a test, I am buying you all pancakes.

[maryadkins]

I think you're rewrite of (B) is good, Walt! And I agree with you on (D) too.

Tricky question.

[pewals13]

Our mission if we choose to accept it:

Find what needs to be true in order to be able to conclude from Anita's statements that Marcus' general claim about traditional journalistic ethics is incorrect

Core:

In a typical case, where a journalist has some information but is in a quandary about whether it is yet important or newsworthy, traditional journalistic ethics provides inadequate guidance

=>

For most ethical dilemmas the journalist is likely to face, traditional journalistic ethics is not clear, adequate, nor essentially correct. [Marcus's general claim is incorrect]

Gaps:

1) It seems like Anita's example is pretty strong evidence that Marcus' general claim is incorrect, maybe the example provided isn't an ethical dilemma but one of professionalism?

Answer Choices:

(A) CORRECT: This needs to be true in order for the one piece of evidence (the example) in Anita's argument to have any chance at proving Marcus' argument to be incorrect. If the example is not an ethical dilemma for journalists, then it is not an example of where traditional journalistic ethics fail to be clear, adequate, or essentially correct.

(B) Out of Scope (relevance): I struggled with this one. I think the reason it is wrong is that it concerns information already deemed "newsworthy." Whether there are or are not circumstances in which it would be ethically wrong for a journalist to go to press with legitimately acquired, newsworthy information has no relevance to Anita's argument, which involves one piece of evidence (a typical example), in which a journalist is conflicted about whether to publish information they are unsure is newsworthy. This answer choice tells you that there are other journalistic circumstances, aside from the one mentioned by Anita, in which ethical dilemmas arise. So what? Fundamentally, a necessary assumption answer needs to strengthen an argument. This answer choice fails to do so because it doesn't address the core of Anita's argument.

(C) Out of Scope: There could be other ethical dilemmas that are more serious, the issue in the core is whether traditional journalistic ethics are clear, adequate, and essentially correct.

(D) Out of Scope: This does not have to be assumed in order for the argument to hold. In order to prove Marcus incorrect it only needs to be the case that traditional journalistic ethics fail to be clear more than 50% of the time. (Note- this is why Anita's argument can potentially work, "typically" means "most," so if traditional journalistic ethics are unclear in the typical case then they are unclear more than 50% of the time).

(E) Too Strong: Marcus doesn't suggest that adequacy requires guidance in every case. He only says that adequacy entails clear guidance in most cases.

[burqin]

First, take a look at how I edited your post title. If you post again (and I hope you will), please use that nomenclature - it makes it easier for us and for future users.

This is a tricky question. #19 is asking, as you suggest, what must be assumed for Anita's argument to be valid.

Part of the key here is boiling down Marcus' argument. His conclusion is that traditional ethics are generally adequate. The support is an example of applying this code.

Anita replies by pointing out a typical situation in which the ethical code is not adequate. The example is the apparently typical situation of a journalist struggling to decide whether a piece information is newsworthy.

The core of her argument is thus: Journalists struggle to decide if info is newsworthy --> traditional ethical code is inadequate.

The gap here is whether that struggle is an ethical one. Perhaps it's just a legal issue, or a stylistic one. (A) establishes that the struggle is indeed ethical. If you negate it (the quandary is not an ethical dilemma), the argument doesn't makes sense.

(B) is tempting, but this answer is about the ethics of releasing newsworthy information - so whether the information is newsworthy has already been established. The core of the argument is about news for which that has not been established. This is subtly but definitively out of scope!

(C) can be eliminated as it involves degree. The most serious?

(D) is too extreme. Neither Marcus nor Anita are suggesting that every situation is covered by an adequate code - just that most are.

(E) is similar to (D). Too extreme.

Does that help?

But in my opinion, (A) is just a "weakening" tool, not a "must be false" one. According to the stimulus, the answer is expected to conclude properly that M's claim is incorrect. In other words, the answer ought to be a "must be false" one. So (A) is not a suitable answer.

Let's negate (A). The outcome is "whether a piece of information is or is not newsworthy don't raise ethical dilemmas for journalists". It just attacks the example which supports (neither guaranttees nor entails) M's conclusion. The example is not logically necessary for M's conclustion so even if something manages to refute the example, M's conclusiton still could stands.

In other words, the refutation could not conclude M's claim is incorrect, just weaken M's argument. So (A) could not be the correct answer. Anyway, (A) is still among the five answers the one nearest to the correct.