Bunuel
The government has recently adopted a policy of publishing airline statistics, including statistics about each airline’s number of near collisions and its fines for safety violations. However, such disclosure actually undermines the government’s goal of making the public more informed about airline safety, because airlines will be much less likely to give complete reports if such information will be made available to the public.
The reasoning in the argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it
(A) fails to consider that, even if the reports are incomplete, they may nevertheless provide the public with important information about airline safety
(B) presumes, without providing justification, that the public has a right to all information about matters of public safety
(C) presumes, without providing justification, that information about airline safety is impossible to find in the absence of government disclosures
(D) presumes, without providing justification, that airlines, rather than the government, should be held responsible for accurate reporting of safety information
(E) fails to consider whether the publication of airline safety statistics will have an effect on the revenues of airlines
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
What? Publishing accident statistics will make the public
less informed? No it **** won’t. Just stop it. This is an argument that only a dirty politician, or LSAT test maker, could love.
We’re asked to find grounds on which the argument is vulnerable. My prediction is, “Listen. Publishing reports makes the public
more informed. If the airlines are going to put less information in the reports, then we just need to force those dicks to issue accurate reports, not make the reports
secret. Are you high?”
A) This doesn’t go as far as I wanted it to go, but I suppose it’s another way of looking at it. Even if the airlines are more guarded with their information, an incomplete published report is probably more useful to the public than a complete unpublished report. I’d be happy with this answer.
B) Huh? The argument never does this. It’s only about airline safety reports, not “all matters of public safety.”
C) Nah, I don’t think the argument actually does this either. The argument doesn’t assume that it’s impossible for investigative journalists, or Erin Brockovich, to dig up the dirt. The argument is solely about whether publishing the reports will make the public more informed or not.
D) The argument doesn’t take a position on this issue.
E) Revenues are irrelevant here. The only thing that’s relevant is the public’s interest in being informed.
Our answer is A.