#19 - Marcus: For most ethical dilemmas the journalist is

[Administrator]

Complete Question Explanation

Assumption. The correct answer choice is (A)

Anita argues that since traditional journalistic ethics cannot help a journalist decide whether some information is newsworthy, Marcus is wrong to claim that traditional journalistic ethics is adequate for most ethical dilemmas the journalist is likely to face.

Answer choice (A): This is the correct answer choice. Anita argues that traditional journalistic ethics is inadequate for most ethical dilemmas that a journalist typically faces, since it does not help a journalist decide whether some information is newsworthy.

Suppose we try the assumption negation technique. If deciding whether some information is newsworthy cannot raise ethical dilemmas, then Anita’s argument collapses since she cannot conclude that traditional journalistic ethics is inadequate for ethical dilemmas. Anita might be able to conclude that traditional journalistic ethics is inadequate for deciding whether information is newsworthy, but she can no longer say that it is inadequate for ethical dilemmas.

Answer choice (B): Anita does not need to assume that there are circumstances in which it would be ethically wrong for a journalist to go to press with legitimately acquired, newsworthy information. Even if there are no circumstances in which it would be ethically wrong for a journalist to do so, Anita can still be correct in claiming that traditional journalistic ethics is inadequate for typical journalist ethical dilemmas.

Answer choice (C): Anita does not need to assume that the most serious professional dilemmas that a journalist is likely to face are not ethical dilemmas. Even if the most serious professional dilemmas that a journalist is likely to face are ethical dilemmas, that still does not weaken Anita’s argument that traditional journalistic ethics is inadequate for typical ethic dilemmas that a journalist faces.

Answer choice (D): Anita does not need to assume that there are no ethical dilemmas that would not be conclusively resolved by an adequate system of journalist ethics. Suppose there are still ethical dilemmas that would not be resolved even by an adequate system of journalist ethics, Anita’s argument that traditional journalistic ethics is inadequate for a journalist’s typical ethical dilemmas still stands.

Answer choice (E): Anita argues that since traditional journalistic ethics cannot provide guidance for the typical case of ethical dilemma that a journalist faces, it is therefore inadequate. She does not need to assume, however, that for a system of journalist ethics to be adequate it must provide guidance for every case. Anita’s argument focuses on the typical case, not every possible case, of ethical dilemma.

[ylikate]

I categorized this question on traditional journalistic ethics as a Justify question, and chose E. I thought the question stem had the classic components of Justify "conclude properly...if assume)
However, the online solution classified it as Assumption. Can someone help me to see where I went wrong? Also, would choice E have been right if this was a Justify question?

[David Boyle]

I categorized this question on traditional journalistic ethics as a Justify question, and chose E. I thought the question stem had the classic components of Justify "conclude properly...if assume)
However, the online solution classified it as Assumption. Can someone help me to see where I went wrong? Also, would choice E have been right if this was a Justify question?

Hello,

Unfortunately, there is no "if" in the question stem. Please check it again!
E might be right, at least in part, as a Justify answer: E says, "for a system of journalistic ethics to be adequate it must be able to provide guidance in every case in which a journalist must make a professional decision", and Anita says that most of the time (if that's what "typical case" means), Marcus' guidance is inadequate. So, then, what Marcus says about "For most ethical dilemmas the journalist is likely to face, traditional journalistic ethics is clear, adequate, and essentially correct" would apparently be wrong, at least the "adequate" part.

David

[Johnclem]

Hi,
I got this question wrong because I identified the question stem as a justify question. Because the stem stated " concludes properly " and because I didn't see any necessary language ( must , required ) that I would see in assumption. How could I avoid this ?


Thanks
John

[Clay Cooper]

Hi Johnclem,

Thanks for your question. It is a good one.

I'll keep it simple: you are definitely thinking about the question stem the right way. You just missed some language of necessity: "would have to be." This is not how the necessity is usually phrased in an assumption question - we are more used to seeing terms like "necessary," "required," or "must be," - but it is no less language of requirement for that, and therefore this is an assumption question.

Keep working hard! This was a simple mistake that should not discourage you - you are approaching the question the right way.

[Coleman]

I understand this is an assumption question, but the question stem here is tricky. it says "In order to conclude properly from Anita's statements that Marcus' general claim about traditional journalistic ethics is INCORRECT, it would have to be assumed that"

Indeed, Anita has never stated that Marcus's general claim about ethics is incorrect. Instead, she merely mentioned it is inadequate in typical cases faced by journalists. I see A could be correct answer, but B was a more tempting choice based on the word in the question stem. I chose B because if there are circumstances in which it's ethically wrong for a journalist to go to press with newsworthy info, in comparison to what Marcus claimed, then we can conclude it is INCORRECT rather than inadequate.

Could you clarify what is the distinction between inadequate and incorrect within the context of this passage?

[Paul Marsh]

Hi Coleman! Your distinction between incorrect vs inadequate shouldn't make a difference here. Marcus's claim is that traditional journalistic ethics is clear, adequate, and essentially correct for most ethical dilemmas the journalist is likely to face. Thus in order for his claim to be correct, journalistic ethics must be all three of those things (clear, adequate, and essentially correct). So if Anita says that traditional journalistic ethics is inadequate, then she is necessarily also saying that Marcus's claim is incorrect.

Now, as for why (B) is wrong. (B) only talks about the case where a journalist has newsworthy information. But Anita is discussing the situation where a journalist doesn't know whether or not they have newsworthy information. So if we do the Assumption Negation technique on (B), we'd get: "there are no circumstances in which it would be ethically wrong for a journalist to go to press with legitimately acquired, newsworthy information." This does not weaken Anita's argument, since again, she's specifically bringing up the common situation where the journalist may or may not have newsworthy information. Thus (B) fails the Assumption Negation test. It is irrelevant to Anita's argument, and is an incorrect answer.

Hope that helps!

[mab9178]

Hi

What is the contrapositive to E please?

Mazen

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Mazen,

The statement is if the system is adequate then it provides guidance in every case

a g

The contrapositive is if it doesn't provide guidance in every case, then the system is not adequate.

g a

But, I have a question for you. Why are you looking for the contrapositive here? Remember that the contrapositive is logically equivalent to the statement it comes from. If you are looking to negate the statement for the assumption negation technique, you are looking for the logical negation, not the logical equivalent. So I'm going to answer a second question here too, and if it's not yours, I'm guessing it could help someone else along the line.

How do you negate a conditional statement?

It's actually much easier than people think. A conditional statement is simply saying that if A happens, then B happens. To negate it, you would say that A can happen even when B does not happen. A conditional statement means that B is required for A. The negation would be that B is not required for A.

How would that look here? Our original statement was that if a system was adequate, then it provides guidance in every case. The negation would be that a system can be adequate even if it doesn't provide guidance in every case. That's all. We just have to say that the necessary condition is not actually necessary.

Hope that helps!

[mab9178]

Hi Rachael,

Sorry for the delayed response and thank you for your input: I actually did mean the contrapositive. However, I appreciate you for discussing the negation, which incidentally raised doubt as to my understanding of the negation; but will address after the contrapositive, and hope you can respond to that -- i.e. your interpretation on hoe to negate a conditional -- as well!

First, concerning the contrapositive, E states: "for a system of journalistic ethics to be adequate it must be able to provide guidance in every case in which a journalist must make a professional decision."

Specifically, the contrapositive is negate and reverse. The negation to the necessary is what I ask your help for please.

The necessary is: "be able to provide guidance in every case in which a journalist must make a professional decision." Negating that would be: "be unable to provide guidance in every case in which a journalist must make a professional decision,"
OR
"in some cases, a journalist is unable to make a professional decision."

I asked about the contrapositive because it incorporates a quantifier "some," I think????? hence my question.

Second, per the negation, if A happens, then B happens, the negation to which, you write, is A happens even if B does not. My thinking on it was A can happen without B necessarily having to happen. OMG we're saying the same thing are we!?!

I guess I just need assurances on both of these please.

Respectfully,
Mazen