Q18 - Teacher: Journalists who conceal

[noah]

The teacher's conclusion is that if a journalist will not reveal her source, she's depending on the "logic of anecdotes." Why? Because if the quote is not sourced, then the quote must be judged by whether it's believable and interesting, in other words, a good story/anecdote.

The student argues that were the teacher correct, we could infer that journalists shouldn't worry about sources, because anyone can make up a good story.

For 18, we need to strengthen the conclusion that quotes without sources are to be judged on whether it's believable and interesting. (A) strengthens this by noting that if the story is NOT believable, the journalist will lose standing.

(B) is distracting - we're not interested in how many of each type of quote are out there.
(C) is irrelevant because it introduces the issue of a teacher's reputation.
(D) digs into an irrelevant issue of to whom the source is kept confidential
(E) is irrelevant as it explores whether the journalist is valued, not how their un-sourced quotes will be evaluated.

[WaltGrace1983]

Journalists who conceal identity dissociate from precise circumstances
-->
Such journalists will be accepted for publication only if statements are high in P, O, or I (a good anecdote)
-->
Such journalists stake professional reputation on the "logic of anecdote"

The main assumption here is that being accepted for a publication that is highly anecdotal actually has something to do with one's professional reputation. We have to strengthen this idea.

(A) Deals with "professional standing" (aka, professional reputation) and unattributed sources. This looks good. Keep.

(B) We don't care about "fully identified" sources. We care only about those journalists who are dealing with unidentified sources. Eliminate.

(C) Do we know if this journalist is "known for solid, reliable work?" However, the bigger problem is that we don't care about the overlap between original statements and implausibility. Eliminate.

(D) This is just like (B) at first so we can eliminate it immediately - we want to know about journalists who DO conceal the identity of their sources. Also, this has nothing to do with professional standing anyway. Eliminate.

(E) They might be "greatly valued by their publishers" but does this have to do with staking one's professional reputation? In addition, this might actually weaken the argument because the reputation wouldn't necessarily be "at stake" as much as it would be made better.

(A) is the last one standing. If rejected for publication --> undermines professional standing. Looks good.

[coco.wu1993]

My cambridge packets say the answer of this question is B, and I actually find it plausible. If the pubication of an unattributed statement requires that the statement have actually been made, journalists cannot invent stories, which strengthens the teacher's argument.

[maryadkins]

Nice work, Waltgrace!

And nope, (A) is the correct answer, here...sorry that the Cambridge book printed that one wrong!

[onguyen228]

Topic: "Journalists who conceal the identify of the sources they quote."

The teacher claims that the journalists who follow the practice of using unnamed sources subject their reputation to the logic of anecdotes (LoA). We are also told that if the work with unnamed source is accepted for publication then it shows that it passed the logic of anecdotes (LoA) test, which is the statement being plausible, original, or interesting.

Accepted ---> LoA passed ---> Reputation uneffected
Reputation effected ---> LoA failed ---> Not Accepted

For this question, the elements have to be linked up. The way I see it is that the conclusion contains a causal statement (LoA affects reputation) and the premise/subsidiary conclusion contains a conditional statement (accepted, then past LoA). Linking the elements, then getting the contrapositive which ends up being the answer to this question.

The issue with the teacher's argument is that it is flawed. The causal reasoning contained in the conclusion is a huge indicator. Her causal claim is not supported by her premises. In order to strengthen her argument, the causal reasoning has to be supported by showing that the causal case does exist.

The approach to answer the strengthen question is opposite to the weaken question. For the weaken question, search for the assumption and prove the assumption to be false. For the strengthen question search for the assumption, in this case the assumption is the causal assumption, that being only one cause for that one effect, and show that the assumption exist. What I've noticed in answering a lot of strengthen questions was pick an answer choice that had new information supporting the assumption/causal conclusion of the argument.

Break Down:

Premise
Statements from unnamed sources are dissociated from the circumstance it was made (tells you the issue with statements by unnamed sources).

Premise/subsidiary conclusion
If unnamed source statements are accepted for publication, then the statements are plausible, original, or interesting.

Accepted for publication ---> plausible/original/interesting (pass LoA)

Main Conclusion
Journalists stake their professional reputations on logic of anecdotes (LoA).

Pass LoA ---> unscathed reputation

Summation:
Accepted for publication ---> plausible/original/interesting (pass LoA) ---> unscathed reputation

Contrapositive (Answer):
Scathed reputation ---> Failed LoA---> Rejected