Q6 - The word "loophole" is a loaded

[mshinners]

Question Type:
Principle Support (Strengthen/Sufficient)

Stimulus Breakdown:
"Loophole" is a loaded, negative, opinion-based term. Journalists should not use it unless they have evidence of wrongdoing.

Answer Anticipation:
The judgment here is that a term shouldn't be used except in the case of wrongdoing. The reasons given are that the term is opinion-based.

The answer will connect these - If a term is based on opinion, it shouldn't be used in news unless evidence is given to back it up.

Correct answer:
(C)

Answer choice analysis:
(A) Out of scope. The argument is about the usage of the term "loophole" in news coverage, not in the reality of what a loophole is.

(B) Bad connection. The conclusion is about news reporters, not editorials, and so connecting the two doesn't help.

(C) Bingo. Evidence must be given to back up the use of "loophole"; otherwise, it must be avoided.

(D) Out of scope. The conclusion is about news reporters, not editorialists.

(E) Out of scope. The conclusion is about a specific term to avoid, not a general area to avoid. Also, "public interest" is out of scope of the argument.

Takeaway/Pattern:
Simplifying the argument core in Principle Strengthen questions will generally give you something approaching the right answer, as that answer generally connects the premise(s) and conclusion.

#officialexplanation

[Jdanz653]

Question Type: Principle. So our task will be to identify a principle that will justify the argument, much like a sufficient assumption question.

P1: "loophole" is a loaded partisan word that suggests wrongdoing

Conc: News reporters should not use that term unless they actually have evidence of wrongdoing.


A: States making use of a loophole is never considered a scandal. It seems as if this answer choice is equivocating the word loophole and using it more in the sense of something like a contractual loophole, which would make it irrelevant. Eliminate.

B: States that editorials should meet the same standards that journalists do. We don't care about the standards that editorials use, so irrelevant. Eliminate.

C: States that news stories must give evidence to justify suggestions of misconduct. This looks good! This basically allows us to draw our conclusion of being required to provide evidence of wrong doing. Previously there was a disconnect in the argument, and one could question why was it the case that simply because loopholes suggest wrongdoing that there must be evidence to use the term? Well this choice answers that fills in that gap. Because loopholes imply wrongdoing, and any suggestions of misconduct must be backed up, it must be the case that one can't use the term loophole unless they have evidence that such wrongdoing has occurred.

D: States that editorial writers should be free to use loaded words. Again, we don't care about editorials. Eliminate due to irrelevancy.

E: States that news reporters should not report on wrongdoing that is not a matter of public interest. Public interest? This was never mentioned or implied by the stimulus at all, so irrelevant. Eliminate.