Summary
From the stimulus, we learn that all journalists are against lying. However, journalists aren’t in total agreement about everything. Some journalists think that spoken words should always be quoted verbatim, and other journalists think that it’s fine to tighten up the wording if necessary. Also, some journalists believe that it’s lying to not identify oneself as a journalist, while others believe that it’s acceptable to do so to expose wrongdoing.
Strongly Supported Conclusions
We can infer that not all journalists agree about what counts as lying. We know this because all journalists oppose lying, but only some journalists think that tightening quotes or obscuring their status as journalists would be prohibited by that rule.
A
Reporters make little effort to behave ethically.
This is anti-supported by the stimulus. The author explains that reporters try to act ethically by avoiding lying, as well as providing some details about what that means to different reporters. This all entails at least some effort to behave ethically.
B
There is no correct answer to the question of whether lying in a given situation is right or wrong.
The stimulus does not support this conclusion. The author is just talking about what journalists believe, and makes no absolute moral claims about right and wrong. Also, even if the journalists’ beliefs are “correct,” they’re pretty clear that lying is always wrong.
C
Omission of the truth is the same thing as lying.
This is not supported by the stimulus. While the author tells us that some journalists believe this, some also do not. Because the author doesn’t directly take a stance, we can’t say whether or not an omission truly counts as a lie.
D
Since lying is permissible in some situations, reporters are mistaken to think that it is absolutely taboo.
This is not supported. The author never directly says whether lying is ever permissible—all we know is the journalists’ opinion, so it’s impossible to compare that to an absolute moral truth.
E
Reporters disagree on what sort of behavior qualifies as lying.
This inference is strongly supported. The author explains that all journalists oppose lying. However, some journalists think omission can be acceptable (meaning, it’s not lying), while others think it counts as lying. So, journalists (or reporters) can disagree.