#10 - Broadcaster: Our radio station has a responsibility to

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Flaw in the Reasoning. The correct answer choice is (E)

This argument is flawed because it employs the Uncertain Use of a Term or Concept reasoning error. Specifically, it uses the phrase "public interest" ambiguously.

The Broadcaster begins the argument by asserting a principle, that the radio station has a responsibility to (i.e., should) serve the "public interest." In other words, the radio station should do what will benefit the public.

The Broadcaster invokes this principle in response to criticism concerning the radio station's coverage of the private lives of local celebrities. However, the Broadcaster alters the meaning of the principle by using the phrase "public interest" in a new way. Rather than referring to what will benefit the public, the phrase "public interest" as used in the conclusion refers to that which entertains the public. Instead of giving the public what it needs, the radio station is giving the public what it wants.

Armed with our prephrase, that the argument employs an ambiguous usage of the phrase "public interest," we can head to the answer choices. By skimming through the answer choices, we can see that only answer choice (E) presents as a flaw the ambiguous usage of the phrase "public interest." Answer choice (E) is correct.

consider why the remaining answer choices are incorrect. Recall that an incorrect answer choice to a Flaw in the Reasoning question will either fail the Fact Test, because the stated error did not occur in the stimulus, or it will describe something that appeared in the stimulus but did not constitute a reasoning error.

Answer choice (A): This answer choice describes an Unwarranted Assumption. The Broadcaster expressly limits the argument to the application of the principle that the radio station has a responsibility to serve the public interest. Moreover, the existence of a right to privacy would weaken the Broadcaster's argument by providing a competing principle, and thus the argument does not contain an unstated, necessary premise (i.e., assumption) that such a right exists. Nor is the existence of a right to privacy implied by the contention that the expose was excessively intrusive, because that criticism could just as easily result from applying some other principle, such as a contractural provision or local ordinance unrelated to privacy concerns. Additionally, even if that assertion implies that a right to privacy exists, that is the assertion of the radio station's critics, not the Broadcaster.

Answer choice (B) By its terms, the argument is constrained to the circumstance in which the radio station's critics contend its recent expose of the private lives of local celebrities was excessively instrusive. Therefore, other grounds of criticism are irrelevant to this argument. Because it is not an error in reasoning to ignore irrelevant information, this answer choice is incorrect.

Answer choice (C) Nothing in the stimulus tells us anything about the Broadcaster's intent in making this argument. Accordingly, we have insufficient information to determine that the Broadcaster intentionally failed to do anything. Therefore, this answer choice fails the Fact Test. Moreover, this argument depends solely upon the application of an unqualified principle, to do that which serves the public interest. So, the specific meaning of "excessively instrusive" is not required to reach the conclusion, and its absence is not a reasoning error.

Answer choice (D) This answer choice also fails the Fact Test. While a "responsibility" may be moral or legal in nature, the argument does not establish whether the radio station's responsibility is moral or legal. It could be both. Because the argument does not establish the nature of the responsibility, it cannot have done so mistakenly. Moreover, the argument's reasoning does not depend on whether the responsibility was moral or legal, and so the argument does not contain an assumption in which the alleged error occurs.

Answer choice (E):This is the correct answer choice. See discussion above.

[kirstenjm3]

Hi there, I am having trouble wrapping my head around the mistaken negation in the Question stimulus. Further explanation would be greatly appreciated!

The stimulus reads: [content removed in compliance with copyright restrictions]


In the answer explanations, it states that the stimulus contains flawed reasoning in the form of a mistaken negation.

Premise: Citizens NOTAllowed to Communicate OR Citizens NOT permitted access --> Censorship

Conclusion: Therefore, Citizens Allowed to Communicate AND Citizens Permitted Access (if the public itself is unwilling to provide funds) --> NOT Censorship

Now, I understand the mistaken negation in the premise, but I don't understand the mistaken negation in the conclusion of this argument. How does the public unwillingness to provide funds for those certain activities translate into citizens being allowed to communicate and permitted access? Does it have something to do with being permitted/allowed vs. being willing?

Thank you!

[Ron Gore]

Hi Kirsten,

Here's a better way to think about it. There is no Mistaken Negation in the premise, because the premise only states the rule, and does not attempt to state the contrapositive. The rule is:

we are not allowed to communicate at own expense

or censorship exists

others not permitted to access our communication

The conclusion in the stimulus is flawed because it says that the satisfaction of some other term (public unwillingness) never described in the rule shows that there is no censorship. Public unwillingness to fund communication does not prevent us from communicating at our own expense, and it also is not others being prevented from accessing our communication. In other words, the stimulus is acting as if the sufficient conditions given in the first sentence were actually necessary for censorship to exist, rather than sufficient.

While this is not strictly a Mistaken Negation, LSAC it treating it very similarly to a Mistaken Negation. In a true Mistaken Negation, we would be told that we are not permitted to communicate at our own expense or that others are not permitted to access our communication.

However, Answer choice (D), which is the correct answer choice, is a Mistaken Negation, because it tells us that if an action endangers only the reputation of the doer, i.e., it does not risk the doer's life, then it is not heroic. Although this answer choice is structurally somewhat different than what occurred in the stimulus, it is nonetheless correct, because it is the closest to what occurred in the stimulus. In both cases, the conclusion treated the absence of the sufficient condition (either because they just didn't talk about it, as in the stimulus, or because they told us it was not the case, as in answer choice (D)) as proof that the necessary condition was not present.

Please let me know if that helps.

Thanks,

Ron

[kirstenjm3]

Hi Ron,

Yes that makes more sense. Sneaky MN. Thank you!

Kirsten

[relona]

I understand why (A) was correct. However, I didn't see the distinction between the use of public interest in the beginning and end of the stimulus. How would I change my strategy or go about this type of question if I came across it again?

[Robert Carroll]

relona,

Any time the author of an argument uses the same term twice, or one term and a synonym, in the course of the stimulus, you should make sure the meanings are stable. Often they are - it's fine to repeat terms. But if the two terms, or term and synonym, have meanings that do not fully overlap (or even meanings that significantly diverge!), then consider whether one meaning is needed to make sense of one use, and an entirely different meaning to make sense of a different use of the term. This is what we call "uncertain use of a term or concept", and has appeared a handful of times on the LSAT.

Robert Carroll