Find what needs to be true in order to be able to conclude from Anita's statements that Marcus' general claim about traditional journalistic ethics is incorrect
Core:
In a typical case, where a journalist has some information but is in a quandary about whether it is yet important or newsworthy, traditional journalistic ethics provides inadequate guidance
=>
For most ethical dilemmas the journalist is likely to face, traditional journalistic ethics is not clear, adequate, nor essentially correct. [Marcus's general claim is incorrect]
Gaps:
1) It seems like Anita's example is pretty strong evidence that Marcus' general claim is incorrect, maybe the example provided isn't an ethical dilemma but one of professionalism?
Answer Choices:
(A) CORRECT: This needs to be true in order for the one piece of evidence (the example) in Anita's argument to have any chance at proving Marcus' argument to be incorrect. If the example is not an ethical dilemma for journalists, then it is not an example of where traditional journalistic ethics fail to be clear, adequate, or essentially correct.
(B) Out of Scope (relevance): I struggled with this one. I think the reason it is wrong is that it concerns information already deemed "newsworthy." Whether there are or are not circumstances in which it would be ethically wrong for a journalist to go to press with legitimately acquired, newsworthy information has no relevance to Anita's argument, which involves one piece of evidence (a typical example), in which a journalist is conflicted about whether to publish information they are unsure is newsworthy. This answer choice tells you that there are other journalistic circumstances, aside from the one mentioned by Anita, in which ethical dilemmas arise. So what? Fundamentally, a necessary assumption answer needs to strengthen an argument. This answer choice fails to do so because it doesn't address the core of Anita's argument.
(C) Out of Scope: There could be other ethical dilemmas that are more serious, the issue in the core is whether traditional journalistic ethics are clear, adequate, and essentially correct.
(D) Out of Scope: This does not have to be assumed in order for the argument to hold. In order to prove Marcus incorrect it only needs to be the case that traditional journalistic ethics fail to be clear more than 50% of the time. (Note- this is why Anita's argument can potentially work, "typically" means "most," so if traditional journalistic ethics are unclear in the typical case then they are unclear more than 50% of the time).
(E) Too Strong: Marcus doesn't suggest that adequacy requires guidance in every case. He only says that adequacy entails clear guidance in most cases