Logical Reasoning

PT16 · S3 · Q23 Reporting on a civil war

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Reporting on a civil war, a journalist encountered evidence that refugees were starving because the government would not permit food shipments to a rebel-held area.

Conclusion

It's ethically permissible to file the censored report.

Evidence (because)

The news agency that publishes it will precede the report with the notice "Cleared by government censors".

Evaluate

This is a weird question stem to navigate. They want us to support the conclusion that it's ethically permissible to file the report.

Why would someone think it's ethically impermissible to file the report? Well, they might think to themselves,

However, this journalist is making peace with the idea of filing the censored report because of the "disclaimer" that it's been cleared by government censors.

So the journalist must be thinking,

Goal

To support that it's ethically permissible to file the report, we'll want something like,

The other part of the question stem, about seems like it will be a tie-breaker between answers. If there's more than one answer that would help prove it's ethically permissible to file the report, then we'll pick based on which rule allows the most information to be reported.

23.

Which one of the following ethical criteria, if valid, would serve to support the journalist’s conclusion while placing the least constraint on the flow of reported information?

  1. It is ethical in general

    Opposite

    This rule seems to suggest that filing the report would be unethical. The omitted facts (the government is causing these refugees to starve by shutting off food shipments) substantially alter the impression someone would get by reading the report. The censored version doesn't give the clear impression that the government is responsible for the starvation, whereas an uncensored version would give that impression.

    4% picked this

  2. In a situation of conflict,

    Opposite

    In the sense that the journalist's report will convey known facts, this rule says that it is ethical to report it. If the article fails to report facts that would tend to exonerate one party, then it would be unethical. The censored version of this article fails to report facts that would tend to incriminate one party (it fails to report the facts that would incriminate the government for their role in the starving refugee situation). Would those same facts tend to exonerate the rebels? Yes. The starvation is happening in a rebel-held area, so it would be natural to blame the rebels for the starving refugees. But if the article included the known facts that the government is blocking food shipments, then the reader would not blame (would exonerate) the rebels for the starving refugee situation. So according to this rule, it would be unethical to file the censored report.

    2% picked this

  3. In a situation of censorship,

    Opposite

    According to this rule, it would be unethical to file the censored report. After all, the government DID delete material unfavorable to that government (it got rid of information explaining that the government was blocking food to the starving refugees).

    2% picked this

  4. Correct

    It is ethical in general

    Why this is right

    This is saying that in general, filing a report full of known facts is ethical, so that would justify the journalist's conclusion. However, there's an exception: If relevant facts have been deleted by a censor and the recipient of the report is not warned that censorship has taken place, then it's unethical. But that exception doesn't apply here, because the recipient is being warned that censorship has taken place, via the disclaimer "cleared by government censors".

    Skill tested: Principle-Strengthen · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    69% picked this

  5. Although it is ethical in

    More Constraining

    Similar to (D), this is saying that in general reporting known facts is ethical, which supports the journalist's conclusion. But it also has an exception: If the censor has deleted relevant facts (which is certainly the case in this journalist's report), then ethical reporting requires both that the recipient is warned of censorship and that the surviving facts do not by themselves give off a misleading impression. Given that the journalist's report never blames the starvation on nature or on the rebels, the censored report is not giving off the misleading impression that either of those two things is to blame for the starvation. We might still say that the report gives off the impression that the rebels are to blame, since the starvation occurs in a rebel-held area. But either way. Even if we say that this rule would agree with the journalist and deem her censored report an ethical one, this answer loses to (D), because this answer attaches two requirements to censored reports whereas (D) only attached one. With (D), we can publish any known facts, even if the report has been censored, as long as we issue a warning that the report has been censored. With (E), we can publish known facts, even if the report has been censored, as long as we meet two conditions: we issue a warning that the report has been censored and the surviving facts in the report don't give off a misleading impression.

    23% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free