Many people say that the press should not pry into the personal lives

Question

Many people say that the press should not pry into the personal lives of private individuals. But the press has the right to publish any story of interest to the public unless that story is libelous. So, if a story about a private individual is not libelous, the press has an obligation to publish it, for such information is clearly of interest to the public.

The argument’s reasoning is vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument presumes, without giving warrant, that

(A) the press can publish nonlibelous stories about private individuals without prying into their personal lives

(B) one’s having a right to do something entails one’s having an obligation to do it

(C) the publishing of information about the personal lives of private individuals cannot be libelous

(D) if one has an obligation to do something then one has a right to do it

(E) the press’s right to publish always outweighs the individual’s right not to be libeled

Bunuel · Accepted Answer

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

Wait, what? Remember, the arguments on the LSAT usually don’t make any sense. This one is no exception. My default mode is always going to be, “The argument doesn’t make sense because _______________.” Here, the argument has concluded that the press has an obligation to publish every non-libelous story about a private individual, on the evidence that “such information is clearly of interest to the public.” That is some bullshit right there. Just because we might be “interested” in what kind of underwear George Clooney wears does not mean that the press has an obligation to publish that story. We are asked to find a flaw in the logic, and I think the flaw is that the argument presumes the press has an obligation to publish every story we are interested in. Is that a fact? It wasn’t presented as fact. So it’s just a giant assumption. And you’re not allowed to make giant assumptions in legal reasoning.

A) The argument doesn’t assume this. Rather, the argument seems not to care whether the press pries or not.

B) I think this is it. The argument says the press has the  right  to publish stories about Clooney’s tighty whities, therefore it has an  obligation  to publish those stories. This answer choice does the same thing.

C) The argument doesn’t do this. Rather, the argument says the press is obligated to publish certain non-libelous stories. Libelous stories are explicitly exempted from the obligation.

D) This is the reverse of B, but B was correct. This one gets the relationship backward.

E) Same explanation as C. Libelous stories are explicitly exempted from the argument’s conclusion. So this can’t be the answer.

Our answer is B.

Shadyshades · Answer

Just because press has right to publish any sort of story unless it's fake, it doesn't mean press has an obligation to do so. 
Option B.

napolean92728 · Answer

The correct answer is  (B)  one's having a right to do something entails one's having an obligation to do it.
Reasoning for the correct answer: The argument makes a critical leap from "the press has the right to publish" to "the press has an obligation to publish." This assumes that having a right automatically creates an obligation, which is an unjustified assumption. Rights typically permit actions but don't necessarily require them. The argument fails to provide any justification for why the right to publish becomes an obligation to publish.

Reasons for eliminating the incorrect options: 
 (A)  is incorrect because the argument doesn't presume this. In fact, the argument acknowledges that publishing stories about private individuals does involve prying into their personal lives (it mentions the criticism that "the press should not pry into the personal lives of private individuals"). The argument isn't claiming these activities can be separated.

(C)  is incorrect because the argument doesn't make this presumption. The argument explicitly mentions that stories can be libelous, and it only discusses publishing non-libelous stories. Nothing in the argument suggests that information about private individuals' personal lives cannot be libelous.

(D)  is incorrect because the argument doesn't make this presumption. The argument moves from rights to obligations, not from obligations to rights. This option reverses the direction of the flawed reasoning in the argument.

(E)  is incorrect because the argument doesn't address any conflict between the press's rights and individuals' rights regarding libel. The argument specifically excludes libelous stories from what the press has a right to publish ("unless that story is libelous"). The argument doesn't presume that press rights outweigh protection from libel - it explicitly states that libelous content isn't covered by the press's right to publish.

Many people say that the press should not pry into the personal lives

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards

GMAT Critical Reasoning (CR) Questions

Many people say that the press should not pry into the personal lives

Prep Toolkit

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards