#2 - Editorial: It is usually desirable for people to have a

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Strengthen—PR. The correct answer choice is (C)

This author concedes that access to unregulated information is generally desirable, but argues
that information on the Internet should be regulated. This is because the Internet makes it hard to
differentiate between accurate information and misinformation, which is necessary for accurate
information to be useful (note the necessary condition indicator “unless” in the last sentence).

When reworded, the argument has the following structure:

• Premise: It is difficult to distinguish accurate information from misinformation on the
  Internet.
  
  Premise: The distinction is necessary for the accurate information to be useful:
  Information useful Distinguish accurate vs. misinformation
  
  Conclusion: Information on the Internet should be regulated.

Note that the question stem is a Strengthen—PR, not a Justify—PR because of the presence of
the word “most” in the question stem, which weakens the force required of the correct answer. In
a Strengthen—PR question, the correct answer will provide a premise that, when applied to the
specific situation in the stimulus, helps support the conclusion. In this problem, you must select a
principle that favors the regulation of information on the Internet (not incidentally, the LSAT has a
known pro-regulatory bias). This prephrase, despite its broad scope, helps eliminate every answer
choice except for answer choice (C).

A more precise prephrase would establish a stronger link between the premise and the conclusion,
which is currently missing. The author proposes regulation as a solution to the problem of
distinguishing accurate information from misinformation, but no overt connection is made between
the two. You should immediately notice that the practice of regulating information is a new, rogue
element in the conclusion, which makes the argument quite weak. To expedite the sorting of answer
choices into contenders and losers, remember that the correct answer to a Strengthen—PR question
will almost always address the rogue elements in the conclusion, if they exist. In short, the correct
answer in this question must link the need to distinguish accurate information from misinformation
with the practice of regulating information. Only answer choice (C) does that, which is why it is the
correct answer choice.

Answer choice (A): The principle in this Opposite answer reveals a significant downside to the
practice of regulating information—people’s access to accurate information would be restricted. If
true, this principle would weaken an argument in favor of regulation.

Answer choice (B): This is another Opposite answer, showing that regulating information is
unlikely to help distinguish accurate information from misinformation. This answer choice would
only be attractive if you focused on the first sentence of the stimulus and completely ignored the
counterpremise or the main conclusion.

Answer choice (C): This is the correct answer choice. If regulating information makes it easy
for people to distinguish between accurate information and misinformation, and information on
the Internet is only useful if such a distinction is made, then information on the Internet should
be regulated. This answer choice established a near-perfect logical link between the premise and
the conclusion of the argument, and is therefore the correct answer choice to this Strengthen—PR
question.

Answer choice (D): This principle affirms the need to have access to accurate information, which
is entirely unnecessary. The issue is how to ensure that such information is useful, which this
principle does not touch upon. Simply put, any answer choice that does not mention “regulation of
information” should be immediately eliminated.

Answer choice (E): This is another Opposite answer. If it is more desirable to have access to useless,
unregulated misinformation than it is to have access only to accurate but regulated information, then
we should probably not regulate information on the Internet. As with answer choices (A) and (B),
this answer choice would only be attractive if you focused on the first sentence of the stimulus and
completely ignored the counterpremise or the main conclusion.

[lastlsatmaster]

Hi,

So the premises in this question, the way I see them, are as follows:

1) Accurate information is useful only if it can easily be distinguished from misinformation.
2) Accurate information is hard to distinguish from misinformation.

Conclusion: Information should be regulated

I understand how the correct answer choice has to link the conclusion with the premises. My only concern is that our answer choice basically negates Premise 2, which means that accurate information, post-regulation, will be easy to distinguish from misinformation. This doesn't mean that accurate information is useful, only that it is not unuseful. Is this enough to justify the argument i.e. is it enough to negate one of the premises can create the possibility for accurate information to be useful, without going all the way and ensuring that it is?

Thanks

[Dave Killoran]

Hi Last,

Thanks for the question! I don't agree that the correct answer negates one of the premises of the argument. Why is it difficult to determine which information is accurate? Because there's so much misinformation. Adding regulation into that changes the circumstances surrounding that determination, which produces a different outcomes. That's not a negation of the premise, just adding a new level that alters what happens. It's like an argument that says "Our star running back is injured so we will lose the game." If you then add new information that "but our star quarterback is returning so we won't lose the game," you haven't negated or denied the running back premise, but you've added new information that changes how you evaluate the conclusion.

Also, as the explanation above notes, this isn't a Justify question, so we aren't held to that high standard here! the conclusion is that we need regulation, and there's a missing link here that connects distinguishing information and regulation. Answer choice (C) shows us how regulation helps meet the necessary condition in the second premise of the argument (as given in the explanation) and thus it does help us here.

Thanks!

[Albertlyu]

thanks, Dave for your explanation, please may I ask if there is a second assumption besides "if regulated-->easier to tell the accurate info", which is the argument has never established that it is beneficial to have the accurate info(just for the argument's sake, maybe it is a good thing to have misinformation mixed up with the real info), but the conclusion by stating that "should be regulated" seems to indicate so.

thanks.

[Robert Carroll]

Albert,

Yep! This is a Strengthen question, so the correct answer does not have to address every problem. The conclusion claims that something should be done, but the premises do not decisively show that I should want accurate information, technically, so you're right, the answer could have addressed that instead (or also).

Robert Carroll

[Albertlyu]

Got it. Thank you Robert for your help!