Q18 - In a highly publicized kidnapping case

[aidanmenzul]

I'm not quite sure why the answer is B and not C. I can see that the local citizen used the term in two different contexts but C just seems more attractive because everything the local citizen said wouldn't apply.

[giladedelman]

Thanks for the question.

The citizen argues that arousing the public interest is inconsistent with ruling that an open trial is not in the public interest. But he uses the term "public interest" in two very different senses. In the first case, it refers literally to the public's interest, that is, to the public's being interested in something. In the second case, on the other hand, "public interest" more closely means "that which is in the best interests of the public."

So (B) is correct; the argument does trade on the ambiguity in the term "public interest."

(C) is incorrect, on the other hand, because the citizen's argument doesn't depend on the judge having made the plea to the public. The citizen doesn't specify who "they" are, he merely says that this group -- which includes the judge and whomever else -- made a plea and then closed the trial to spectators. What is at issue is whether these two actions are inconsistent, not whether a particular individual is guilty of inconsistency.

(A) is incorrect. The argument is about this particular case; it doesn't generalize.

(D) is incorrect because there are no sensationalistic appeals.

(E) is out of scope. Where do "the public's right to know" and "fair trial" enter into this argument?

Does that clear this one up at all? I'm with you, it's a strange question.

[aidanmenzul]

Yes, thank you. It makes sense..

[GingerB459]

I am struggling with D. Isn't the argument sensationalist in its dramatizing of actions and linking together things that aren't clearly related? It seems the way sensationalism is described above is too limited as it focuses on consequences. Sensationalism can also mean describing a way that is "overhyped to present biased impressions on events, which may cause a manipulation to the truth of a story". If that's the case, then that seems to be what the local citizen is doing.

I'm also confused about the explanation for B and C. It seems we are acknowledging the ambiguity with the term "public interest" to explain why B is correct, but for D, we aren't acknowledging the ambiguity in the term "they", which would highlight the possibility that the judge's actions has nothing to do with those the other "theys" in the argument. What am I missing here?

Thank you!