PT127.S1.Q12 > Question

SECTION 1 · lr

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26

SECTION 2 · lr

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · rc

PASSAGE 1

Question 1 Question 2 Question 3 Question 4 Question 5 Question 6 Question 7

PASSAGE 2

Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13 Question 14 Question 15

PASSAGE 3

Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19 Question 20 Question 21

PASSAGE 4

Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

The stimulus can be diagrammed as follows:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

PrepTest 127 - Section 1 - Question 12

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action