#23 - Libel is defined as damaging the reputation of

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

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

The first sentence provides a definition for “libel.” The use of the premise indicator “for” at the beginning of the third sentence indicates that the second sentence is the conclusion of the argument. Meanwhile the third sentence is the premise that supports that conclusion. The argument is structured as follows:

• Premise: Strong libel laws cause no one to say anything bad about public figures.
  
  Conclusion: Strong libel laws make it impossible for public figures to have a good reputation.

The argument concludes that strong laws against libel actually prevent any public figures from having good reputations because no one will say anything bad about them. This result is ironic because one would expect strong laws against libel would actually promote good reputations. Note the logical gap in this argument. The fact that no one says anything bad about public figures does not prove that no one can have a good reputation. The author provides no explanation for why this lack of negative statements about public figures prevents them from having good reputations. In order to strengthen this argument, the correct answer will likely connect these two ideas together.

Answer Choice (A): This answer choice does not address the facts of the stimulus. The stimulus claims no one can have a good reputation because of the presence of strong laws against libel. This answer choice states that everyone can have a good reputation because of the absence of laws against libel. Since there are strong laws against libel in the stimulus, this answer choice does not apply.

Answer Choice (B): There are three problems with this answer choice. First of all, while we know that the stimulus is concerned with strong libel laws, we do not necessarily know they are extremely strong. We also do not know whether the laws are rigorously enforced. For these reasons, this principle does not apply to the facts in the stimulus. Finally, even if this answer did apply to the stimulus, it only explains why some public figures have bad reputations, but does not help explain why no public figures have good reputations.

Answer Choice (C): This answer choice is irrelevant. This answer simply modifies the definition of libel in the stimulus. However, it does not support the conclusion, as it provides no explanation why strong libel laws prevent anyone from having a good reputation.

Answer Choice (D): The fact that people cannot prove these false statements may explain why people refrain from making negative statements in the first place, but it does not explain why no public figures in these countries can have good reputations as a result of strong libel laws.

Answer Choice (E): This is the correct answer choice. This answer choice connects the premises to the conclusion. If this statement is true, then there must be public figures with bad reputations in order for other public figures to have good reputations. The reasoning here is conditional in nature and can be diagrammed as follows:

• Some have good reputations Others have bad reputations

Since we know strong libel laws effectively prevent people from saying negative things about public figures, there is a good chance that none of these public figures will have bad reputations. If no one has a bad reputation, then the contrapositive property of this answer choice suggests that no one will have a good reputation either.

[melissa27]

Can you please explain the method of attack for question 23. When reading the stimulus, I was confused how it is "impossible for anyone in the public eye to have a good reputation" while "no one will say anything bad about public figures."

How would you suggest attacking this problem?

[Steve Stein]

Thanks for your question. Here, the author says that libel laws, which restrict comments that might injure reputation, can keep people from saying anything bad about any public figure. The author concludes that this can make it impossible for any public figure to develop a good reputation.

Correct answer E provides that without bad reputations, there can be no good reputations. This supports the author's conclusion as follows:

Premise: Strong anti-libel laws can keep everyone from saying anything about any public figure that might lead to a bad reputation.

Strengthener: Without bad reputations, there can be no good reputations.

Conclusion: This can make it impossible for public figures to have a good reputation.

Let me know whether this is clear--thanks!

~Steve

[Etsevdos]

Is the reasoning below acceptable:

Concl: Strong Laws on Libel -->imp for good rep - I then ask myself why this holds true? what support?

We are then told it is because : strong laws -->nothing bad said about public figs.

I need to get public figs to impossible for good rep.

My pre-phrase was, "if nothing bad is said about pub fig, then it is impossible for a good rep", CP: Good Rep--> Must be able to talk smack about public figs (in case wondering). I guess I was thrown off by can on this one and therefore did not diagram it initially. How do I deal with this can?

[AspiringLawyer]

Can you please remind me what the designation of PR means?

[Amy Uecker]

Hi Aspiring!

PR stands for "Principle" question. Hope that helps!

[silent7706]

Hi,

Is "anyone in the public eye" the same as public figure? I thought there was a shift of scope in (E), hence I eliminated it on that basis.

Thanks in advance.

[KelseyWoods]

Hi silent7706!

Yes, being in the public eye means the same things as being a public figure--if you're in the "public eye," you have the attention of the public, meaning you are a public figure. Both the stimulus and answer choice (E) talk about public figures so there is no shift in scope.

Hope this helps!

Best,
Kelsey

[queenbee]

Hi

I still dont understand why E is the correct answer. We could make that comment without the stimulus (it's like the theory of relativity...there is no such thing as bad unless there is good). I felt like D was a better answer because if people are prevented from making false statements (fake news) due to the legal impact, then they would take the time to validate their statements before making them, so we can be assured that if something bad was said, it was true. So, if a public figure doesn't have any negative statements made against him/her/them, then, in the absence of bad, they are good.

Would you please help me understand why this logic is incorrect?
Thank you

[Adam Tyson]

You've already explained the logic yourself, queenbee!

(it's like the theory of relativity...there is no such thing as bad unless there is good)

If this is, in fact, true (it might not be - maybe we can live in a world where people either have a good rep or else no rep at all), then it helps the author's argument that when nobody says bad stuff about people (no bad rep) then they cannot have a good rep, either.

Are you perhaps rejecting it because it seems too obvious, and therefore must be a trap answer? If so, that's never a good reason to reject an answer. Sometimes, the right answer is obvious because it's right and because we know what we're doing it! Rejecting it is just making the test harder than it already is.

Your analysis of answer D overlooks the fact that we are trying to support a conclusion that people CANNOT have a good reputation. It looks like you are suggesting that with strong libel laws it might be EASIER to have a good rep, the reverse of what we want to support. But also, that analysis of D requires too many assumptions on your part. It really tells us nothing about having a good reputation, because it fails to connect the premises about strong libel laws to the conclusion about good reputations.