Q23 - Reporting on a civil war

[bbirdwell]

A No clue how the answers for 17 and 20 are what they are, and I don't know why the better answer for 23 is not E and the better answer for 24 is not A. Please help me out here

For #24, we need to choose an answer with two characteristics: supports the journalist, and places least constraint on flow of info.

The journalist's conclusion is that it is ethically permissible to file the report. Which report? The one that lacks the facts about the government's role in the starvation. Why is it permissible to do this? Because the qualifier "Cleared by govt censors" will precede it.

(D) and (E) are the closest choices here because they both support the journalist. However, we must also take the second criterion in mind -- place the least restriction on flow of information.

(E) is more restrictive than (D) because the given situation is unethical unless two points are met (recipient warned and no misleading impression). In (D), only the one point needs to be met (recipient warned); therefore it is less restrictive than (E).

[dean.won]

This might be a stupud question but when someone 'files' a report does it mean he/she did or did not report it in the newspaper

[ManhattanPrepLSAT1]

This might be a stupud question but when someone 'files' a report does it mean he/she did or did not report it in the newspaper

While it may cliché, it's true nonetheless - there are no stupid questions. When the argument concluded that it was ethical to "file" the report, that means it was reported in the newspaper. You can get a clue that this is the case from the fact that the newspaper would precede a "filed" story with the information, "Cleared by government censors." Additionally, the question stem discusses "reported information."

[WaltGrace1983]

Is (A) wrong because the omitted facts may not "substantially alter the impression" of the government?

As for (E), I think there is something I may be missing. Here is the conditional I have:

(Recipient is not warned) or (Reported facts do give a misleading impression) → ~Ethical

Thus wouldn't (E) be wrong, not because it is more restrictive, but because it is simply not true and/or the opposite of what we need? Condition one is not true; the recipients were warned. Condition two would lead to the conclusion that giving a misleading impression is NOT ethical.. This doesn't look good to me.

Now I guess you could make the argument that we could turn the conditional around and get this:

Ethical → warned for censorship & does not give a misleading impression

However, this would be wrong because the argument is not contending that something is ethical ONLY IF "warned for censorship & does not give a misleading impression." Also, both parts of the necessary condition are arguably not satisfied anyway.

What do you guys think?

[Mab6q]

I really would appreciate an in dept explanation for this one. I had no idea how to approach the least constraint part.

Although I chose D on my first go at it, I couldn't help but notice on my review that all of the answer choices besides B reversed the conditionals that we were given in the stimulus.

This is how I diagrammed D:

~(If relevant facts have been deleted unethical to make report )  recipient of report is warned. This also seems to be reversed. Don't we need recipient of the report being warned to be the sufficient condition and ethical to be necessary?

Please help.

[maryadkins]

I don't think you diagrammed (D) correctly. I can't tell for sure because I see squares (sorry!) so I'm not sure what that symbol is, but the correct diagramming of (D) is:

Deleted by censor + no warning --> unethical

ethical --> ~ deleted OR warning

In this case, you make a good point that an even BETTER answer choice would read:

warned --> ethical

BUT we don't have that as an option, which makes (D) the best/strongest because at least we know there isn't something preventing it from being ethical.

(E) is restrictive because it adds an extra condition, as Brian mentioned.

Hard one!

[Mab6q]

I don't think you diagrammed (D) correctly. I can't tell for sure because I see squares (sorry!) so I'm not sure what that symbol is, but the correct diagramming of (D) is:

Deleted by censor + no warning --> unethical

ethical --> ~ deleted OR warning

In this case, you make a good point that an even BETTER answer choice would read:

warned --> ethical

BUT we don't have that as an option, which makes (D) the best/strongest because at least we know there isn't something preventing it from being ethical.

(E) is restrictive because it adds an extra condition, as Brian mentioned.

Hard one!

Thanks Mary, I'm not sure why those squares showed up. You diagrammed it the way I had it thought out. I guess sometimes the best answer will reverse the answer choices but it's still the best we have.

[WaltGrace1983]

All of this talk about a diagram that reverses would then make me ask, why is okay to do that here?

We typically eliminate answers solely based on reversal in other principle questions. Is this an old question with some rust?

Then (C) and (E) would solely be wrong because they are "less constrained?" Seems kind of odd to me.

[maryadkins]

Hey Walt,

Yeah, it's a weird one. Really weird one.

I'm not sure what you mean by "then (C) and (E) would be less constrained" though.

Regardless, the "less constrained" criterion is what makes this question odd and makes (D) right.

[WaltGrace1983]

Hey Walt,

Yeah, it's a weird one. Really weird one.

I'm not sure what you mean by "then (C) and (E) would be less constrained" though.

Regardless, the "less constrained" criterion is what makes this question odd and makes (D) right.

I'll try to walk through my thought process. After reading the question, the key word I found was this idea of being warned that censorship existed. I want something to say (warned censorship existed) --> (ethical)

(A) Omitted facts would alter impression --> ~ethical


The omitted facts WOULD alter the impression. The sufficient condition is satisfied. However, this says ~ethical! This would actually hurt the argument! In addition, I am a little bit weary that it has nothing about being warned. Eliminate.


(B) In conflict: Fail to report known facts that would exonerate one party --> ~ethical


It wouldn't exonerate one party. We get this from the stimulus. Thus, the sufficient condition isn't satisfied. Plus, it is concluding ~ethical when we need to conclude ~ethical AND there is nothing about being warned. Eliminate.


(C) Govt. deletes unfavorable material --> ~ethical


Very simple answer choice, maybe too simple for the principle we are trying to get to. Either way, it is concluding ~ethical. Once again, we need to conclude ~ethical. Eliminate.


(D) ~(recipient warned censorship existed) --> (relevant facts deleted --> ~ethical)


Finally! Something about being warned. Everything here looks good. However, the argument is tough to follow. It has the right elements. I think it might be concluding ~ethical but the clock is ticking and with so many conditionals I am probably just reading it wrong. Keep.


(E) ~(recipient warned censorship existed & ~misleading impression) --> (relevant facts deleted --> ~ethical)


This looks good too. However the reported facts WOULD, by themselves, give a misleading impression. After all, we know from the censor that the situation (as reported) was not exactly how the situation was. Eliminate.

So after reading the correct answer a few times, I realize that it is backwards, which obviously makes me a bit hesitant to choose it as my answer. I think, "if this one is backwards, I probably misread one of the other answers and THAT answer is probably correct" but I didn't.

As for what I meant by less constrained, the sufficient condition of (C) is satisfied. However, the sufficient condition of (C) would be much easier to satisfy than the sufficient condition of (D). Hence, (C) is "less constrained." It would be like if I said the following: "I will slap you if you are a human" vs. "I will slap you if you have black hair, a mustache, are 3'11, and are Norwegian." The second example puts less constraint (on the human population), which is for some reason what the question called for.

However, is (C) not right BECAUSE of it being less constrained or is not right because of something else? In light of the correct answer (D) reversing the logic, I can only think of two ways in which (C) could be wrong: (1) it is more constrained (aka, an easier to satisfy the sufficient condition) or (2) it isn't the principle we are trying to get. What about (E)?

Thanks!

[maryadkins]

You did a really good job breaking all of this down.

(C) isn't wrong because of constraint or lack of constraint. It's just wrong because it doesn't talk about the warning which misses a critical point of the stimulus. It doesn't get at the principle. Without an applicable principle, it doesn't make sense to talk about how constraining it is, because it is actually just missing the point.

(E) is more constrained for reasons noted above, which is why it's wrong. It is going to have a bigger impact on the flow of information than (D) because it gives TWO criteria/requirements that must be met for it to be ethical to report: the warning AND the lack of a misleading impression. That's going to constrain the flow of information more than (D), which only has one requirement in it.

Might be helpful to think of this apart from conditional logic for a bit if it's still confusing. I'm not sure that's the best tool for this question.

Hope this helps clarify!

[BenL872]

I am a bit confused with the phrase "which had not implicated either nature or the rebels in the starvation."

Does this mean that the journalist's report did not implicate either nature (i.e. Act of God) or the rebels in the starvation of the refugees.

Or does this mean that the report did not implicate the nature of the starvation and the rebels who may have been responsible for it.

Sorry if I am making this more complicated than it is, but I was completely thrown off by that sentence and have re-read it multiple times, and don't really understand what it is alluding to.

Moreover, how does this sentence impact AC A which cites "omitted facts that would substantially alter an impression of a person or institution"? If the omitted facts don't implicate the responsible party, would that substantially alter an impression of a party or person if it were included back in?

Or is my focus off, and I should just focus on whether AC A addresses whether there was a warning embedded into the piece. That seems to be the best way with dealing with this mess of a stimulus / ACs.