LSAT 127 – Section 1 – Question 12

LSAT 127 - Section 1 - Question 12

December 2003

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Ask a tutor

Target time: 1:02

This is question data from the 7Sage LSAT Scorer. You can score your LSATs, track your results, and analyze your performance with pretty charts and vital statistics - all with a Free Account ← sign up in less than 10 seconds

Question
QuickView		 Type Tags Answer
Choices		 Curve Question
Difficulty		 Psg/Game/S
Difficulty		 Explanation
PT127 S1 Q12
+LR
+Exp
Flaw or descriptive weakening +Flaw
Conditional Reasoning +CondR
Link Assumption +LinkA
Value Judgment +ValJudg
A
3%
154
B
90%
163
C
2%
154
D
4%
156
E
1%
152
134
143
151
 +Medium 147.168 +SubsectionMedium

J.Y.’s explanation

You need a full course to see this video. Enroll now and get started in less than a minute.

Many people say that the press should not pry into the personal lives of private individuals. But the press has the right to publish any story of interest to the public unless that story is libelous. So, if a story about a private individual is not libelous, the press has an obligation to publish it, for such information is clearly of interest to the public.

Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:

Identify and Describe Flaw
The argument presumes, based on the fact that the press has a right to do something, that the press has an obligation to do that thing. The argument gives two sufficient for having the right to publish a story (that the story isn’t libelous and that the story is of interest to the public). When these two sufficient conditions are met, all we can say is that the press has a right to publish a story––the premises don’t say anything about what the press is obligated to do.

A
the press can publish nonlibelous stories about private individuals without prying into their personal lives
The argument doesn’t discuss whether or not the press is prying into people’s personal lives. In the context of the argument, we see that many people say that the press shouldn’t pry, but the author’s argument itself doesn’t discuss whether or not the press can (or should) pry.
B
one’s having a right to do something entails one’s having an obligation to do it
This is what the author presumes. The argument lays out the sufficient conditions for when the press has the right to publish stories; we don’t have the conditions to determine what the press is obligated to do. The obligation of the press is an assumption made by the author.
C
the publishing of information about the personal lives of private individuals cannot be libelous
The argument does not make this presumption. The argument gives a conditional conclusion for when stories about private individuals are not libelous––the author isn’t presuming that these stories cannot be libelous; he’s just only talking about the stories that aren’t libelous.
D
if one has an obligation to do something then one has a right to do it
This is a reversal of the assumption that the author does make. The author presumes that, if one has the right to do something, then one has the obligation to do it. (D) reverses the sufficient and necessary conditions of that relationship.
E
the press’s right to publish always outweighs the individual’s right not to be libeled
The author’s conclusion applies to stories that aren’t libelous––according to the author, the press has the obligation to publish when stories aren’t libelous (and are of interest to the public). If a story is libelous, the author’s conclusion doesn’t apply.

Take PrepTest

Review Results

LSAT PrepTest 127 Explanations

Section 1 - Logical Reasoning

Section 2 - Logical Reasoning

Section 3 - Logical Reasoning

Section 4 - Reading Comprehension

Get full LSAT course

Leave a Reply