Journalists often claim that their investigation of the private lives of political leaders is an effort to improve society by forcing the powerful to conform to the same standards of conduct as the less powerful. In reality, however, the tactic is detrimental to society. It makes public figures more concerned with mere appearances, and makes everyone else cynical about the character of their leaders.

The claim that journalistic investigation of the private lives of political leaders is an effort to improve society plays which one of the following roles in the argument?

I chose (A) It is a claim that the argument attempts to refute. However, the answer was (B) It mentions a justification that is sometimes offered for a practice that, the argument concludes, has undesirable consequences.

I think I understand why (A) is not the correct answer, but I am not entirely sure why. To my understanding, the paragraph can be split into 2 parts: one side states a claim that justifies investigating the private lives of political leaders, and the

other states the bad consequences. The second part does not outright refute what the Journalists are saying, so (A) cannot be the right answer.

Does my train of thought makes sense? And does anyone have any tricks/guidance on how to avoid making the same mistake in the future? All help is appreciated.

Admin Note: Edited title. For LR questions, please use the format: "PT#.S#.Q# - brief description of the question."