Youraisemeup wrote:
Marcus: For most ethical dilemmas the journalist is likely to face, traditional journalistic ethics is clear, adequate, and essentially correct. For example, when journalists have uncovered newsworthy information, they should go to press with it as soon as possible. No delay motivated by the journalists’ personal or professional interests is permissible.
Anita: Well, Marcus, of course interesting and important information should be brought before the public—that is a journalist’s job. But in the typical case, where a journalist has some information but is in a quandary about whether it is yet important or “newsworthy,” this guidance is inadequate.
In order to conclude properly from Anita’s statements that Marcus’ general claim about traditional journalistic ethics is incorrect, it would have to be assumed that
(A) whether a piece of information is or is not newsworthy can raise ethical dilemmas for journalists
(B) there are circumstances in which it would be ethically wrong for a journalist to go to press with legitimately acquired, newsworthy information
(C) the most serious professional dilemmas that a journalist is likely to face are not ethical dilemmas
(D) there are no ethical dilemmas that a journalist is likely to face that would not be conclusively resolved by an adequate system of journalistic ethics
(E) For a system of journalistic ethics to be adequate it must be able to provide guidance in every case in which a journalist must make a professional decision.
Source: LSAT
Marcus: For most ethical dilemmas the journalist is likely to face, traditional journalistic ethics is clear, adequate, and essentially correct.
Anita: But where a journalist has some information but is unsure about whether it is yet important or “newsworthy,” this guidance is inadequate.
The question stem is interesting here:
In order to conclude properly from Anita’s statements that Marcus’ general claim about traditional journalistic ethics is incorrect, it would have to be assumed that
If we were to conclude from Anita's statement that Marcus' statement is incorrect, we would have to assume what?
Marcus says that for most ethical dilemmas, traditional journalistic ethics is adequate. Anita says that if a journalist is unsure whether some news is newsworthy, this guidance is inadequate.
Note the disconnect here - Marcus talks about 'ethical dilemma' case while Anita talks about 'whether something is newsworthy'
We will need to assume that the two are connected.
(A) whether a piece of information is or is not newsworthy can raise ethical dilemmas for journalists
Perfect.
(D) there are no ethical dilemmas that a journalist is likely to face that would not be conclusively resolved by an adequate system of journalistic ethics
Not correct. Marcus says 'for most ethical dilemmas.' He doesn't say 'all ethical dilemmas...'
So we don't have to assume that there is no ethical dilemma that cannot be resolved. So we don't need to evaluate it any further.
Answer (A)