Sajjad1994 wrote:
The journalistic practice of fabricating remarks after an interview and printing them within quotation marks, as if they were the interviewee’s own words, has been decried as a form of unfair misrepresentation. However, people’s actual spoken remarks rarely convey their ideas as clearly as does a distillation of those ideas crafted, after an interview, by a skilled writer. Therefore, since this practice avoids the more serious misrepresentation that would occur if people’s exact words were quoted but their ideas only partially expressed, it is entirely defensible.
Which one of the following is a questionable technique used in the argument?
(A) answering an exaggerated charge by undermining the personal authority of those who made that charge
(B) claiming that the prestige of a profession provides ample grounds for dismissing criticisms of that profession
(C) offering as an adequate defense of a practice an observation that discredits only one of several possible alternatives to that practice
(D) concluding that a practice is right on the grounds that it is necessary
(E) using the opponent’s admission that a practice is sometimes appropriate as conclusive proof that that practice is never inappropriate
LSAT PrepTest 5
Premises:Journalists use their own words but print them with " " marks (which seems to show that the interviewee said those words) - People call this unfair misrepresentation.
However, people’s actual spoken remarks don't convery their ideas clearly. A skilled journalist can better convey them in his words.
So this practice (of Journalist's own words in " ") avoids the more serious misrepresentation that would occur if people’s exact words were quoted but their ideas only partially expressed
Conclusion: This practice (of Journalist's own words in " ") should be acceptable.
The argument is flawed. Why?
(A) answering an exaggerated charge by undermining the personal authority of those who made that chargeNobody's personal authority is being undermined.
(B) claiming that the prestige of a profession provides ample grounds for dismissing criticisms of that professionThe author does not say that all journalists are super skilled and hence we should not doubt that they are able to better represent the ideas through their words. He doesn't say journalists shouldn't be questioned, that the prestige of their profession is such that we shouldn't question them etc.
So he doesn't claim that the prestige of a profession provides ample grounds for dismissing criticisms of that profession.
(C) offering as an adequate defense of a practice an observation that discredits only one of several possible alternatives to that practiceA practice - Journalist's own words in " "
The author is defending this practice by saying that a possible alternative (people’s exact words were quoted) is a worse option - so he is discrediting an alternative.
But there are several other alternatives to the practice e.g. the journalist could summarize and present to the interviewee and if the interviewee agrees to that, then he can print it etc. But these altermnatives the author doesn't consider. He considers only one alternative, discredits it and hence defends the practice used.
Hence (C) is correct.
(D) concluding that a practice is right on the grounds that it is necessaryNot correct. He doesn't say the practice is necessary.
(E) using the opponent’s admission that a practice is sometimes appropriate as conclusive proof that that practice is never inappropriateNo such discussion. We are not given that the interviewees sometimes find this practice appropriate.
Answer (C)