PT148.S3.Q6 > 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

SECTION 2 · rc

PASSAGE 1

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

PASSAGE 2

Question 7 Question 8 Question 9 Question 10 Question 11 Question 12 Question 13

PASSAGE 3

Question 14 Question 15 Question 16 Question 17 Question 18 Question 19

PASSAGE 4

Question 20 Question 21 Question 22 Question 23 Question 24 Question 25 Question 26 Question 27

SECTION 3 · lr

SECTION 4 · lr

The author concludes that if they don’t provide evidence of wrongdoing, reporters shouldn’t use the term “loophole” in their news stories.

Why?

Because “loophole” implies wrongdoing. Using “loophole” in a news story makes the story sound more like an editorial.

We want a principle to connect the premises to the judgment that reporters shouldn’t use the term “loophole” if they don’t provide evidence of wrong doing. For example:

If a term implies wrongdoing, and you don’t provide evidence of wrongdoing in the story, then you should not use the term.

or

If a term makes a story sound more like an editorial, and you don’t provide evidence of wrongdoing in the story, then you should not use the term.

We’re trying to prove that the term “loophole” shouldn’t be used under certain circumstances. Whether one uses a loophole is a separate issue.

Whether editorials should meet the same standards as news stories doesn’t tell us that the term “loophole” shouldn’t be used under certain circumstances. We don’t even know from the premises whether the term “loophole” shouldn’t be used under the journalistic standards for new stories.

(C) isn’t worded in a predictable way, but it does strengthen the argument. If news stories need to give evidence to back up suggestions of misconduct, then if they don’t provide evidence of misconduct, they shouldn’t suggest that there was misconduct. The term “loophole” implies misconduct. So if a news story doesn’t provide evidence of misconduct, they shouldn’t use the term “loophole.”

We’re trying to support the claim that news stories shouldn’t use “loophole” without providing evidence of misconduct. A principle allowing editorials to use words like “loophole” doesn’t help us get to the conclusion.

(E) allows us to conclude that news reporters shouldn’t report on certain kinds of wrongdoing. But we’re trying to prove that a certain term shouldn’t be used in a news story. That’s a separate issue from whether reporters should report on certain wrongdoing.

PrepTest 148 - Section 3 - Question 6

Difficulty

Analysis

Answer Popularity

Question history

Confirm action