Q23 - Libel is defined as damaging

[jenndg100380]

Wow. I really need help with this one.

I have the conclusion as:

Strong laws against libel make it impossible for anyone in public eye to have good reputation.

Premise:
Because with strong libel laws, people fear lawsuits and won't say anything bad about public figures.

My first problem...I'm not even sure if I understood the wording of the argument.
In the conclusion it says "strong law AGAINST libel." Is this supposed to be the same thing as "strong libel laws," or are they supposed to be oppposites. I just want to make sure I'm reading the argument correctly.

Now my next question...how in the heck were we supposed to get (E.) as the answer? It doesn't seem to JUSTIFY the conclusion at all?

[giladedelman]

Thanks for posting!

Well, you've done a great job identifying the core. Strong libel laws result in no one saying anything bad about public figures, for fear of lawsuits. Therefore, strong laws against libel can make it impossible for anyone in the public eye to have a good reputation.

(YES, "strong libel laws" and "strong laws against libel" are the same thing.)

Now, isn't that a strange argument? Because no one will say anything bad about public figures, people in the public eye may not be able to have a good reputation? The argument seems to be assuming that if no one has a bad reputation, no one can have a good one, either!

(E) strengthens the argument by making that assumption explicit. If good reputations depend on there being other people with bad reputations, then strong libel laws could indeed prevent any public figure from having a good rep.

(A) is reversed logic. From "strong libel laws ---> no good reputation," we cannot infer "no libel laws ---> all good reputations."

(B) is sort of a conclusion booster. The conclusion already states that strong libel laws can lead to no public figures having a good reputation. That's the issue, not whether some of them will have bad reputations.

(C) is way out of scope. The argument is in no way about whether or what statements should be considered libelous.

(D) actually would weaken the argument by suggesting that people do make negative statements about public figures in the presence of strong libel laws.

Does that clear this one up for you at all? Let me know if you're still buggin' out.

#OfficialExplanation

[yusangmin]

thaniks for the explanation.however therse soemthing i HATE about this question . tell me if im wrong on this..

i initially saw E and said "yes! the type of anwswer im looking for"

however...doesnt the stim make a HUGE assumption?

that in conditonal terms..

no one says anything bad ---> not bad reputiationm?

thus what i mean is..its assuming that if you want a bad reputation you have to have people bad mouthing you?

that seems like a huge leap to me

please help ! thanks!

[giladedelman]

Yes, you're right. We're also assuming that you need to say bad things about somebody for that person to have a bad reputation. So (E) isn't a perfect answer, and it doesn't completely fill the gap; there's still the assumption you identified. But it's the best answer.

Thanks for the question!

[dheleg]

Hello everyone. Let me make the case for (D). (E) is begging for a big leap in reasoning to my understanding at least as much as (D) does.

If in countries where strong libel laws already exist it's been shown that "... people make negative comments about public figures only when such statements can be proven."

Therefore, people won't say anything and when they do those things are true, which in turn will have the consequence that the public figure being attacked will have a bad reputation since whatever is said it is most likely true.

In June 2010 22% of people taking the LSAT picked (D) and 36% picked (E). 18% picked (B) as the right answer. I know these questions make a difference between the 170s and the 150s, but hey, I think they should give us a little stronger answers to choose from...

Thanks!

[judaydaday]

Hello everyone. Let me make the case for (D). (E) is begging for a big leap in reasoning to my understanding at least as much as (D) does.

If in countries where strong libel laws already exist it's been shown that "... people make negative comments about public figures only when such statements can be proven."

Therefore, people won't say anything and when they do those things are true, which in turn will have the consequence that the public figure being attacked will have a bad reputation since whatever is said it is most likely true.

In June 2010 22% of people taking the LSAT picked (D) and 36% picked (E). 18% picked (B) as the right answer. I know these questions make a difference between the 170s and the 150s, but hey, I think they should give us a little stronger answers to choose from...

Thanks!

Hmm. That's an interesting take on the question. When I read your post, I was definitely confused as to why (D) was incorrect. It made me doubt the correctness of (E).

However, the stimulus is just saying:

Since no one will say anything bad about public figures -> it is impossible for anyone in the public eye to have a good reputation.

This is an principle-support question. So we are trying to justify this argument core.

Thinking about when people DO make negative statements is out of scope and cannot help justify as to why NOT saying bad things makes it impossible to have a good reputation.

[douglas.stratton]

I believe another way to look at this is that...

The conclusion draws you cannot have a good reputation if you are in the public eye, why? Because no one can draw criticism against them out of fear of litigation.

Therefore, the author assumes that if one could speak criticize a public figure without that fear, then some would have a good reputation.

Though not strong, (E) fits that description. If Public figures have a good reputation, then some figures have bad reputations. Meaning since some may be criticized, the respect increase for the others indirectly as a result and the view of "untouchable" fades.

[AndreaO452]

Can someone detail this question out for me in conditional logic? I am still not understanding how the answer is B and not E. Trying to diagram I end up with say something bad ->good reputation.

[Misti Duvall]

Can someone detail this question out for me in conditional logic? I am still not understanding how the answer is B and not E. Trying to diagram I end up with say something bad ->good reputation.

I think (B) might be easier to analyze without diagramming. I would eliminate (B) because it doesn't help support the conclusion that no one will have good reputations; it's just talking about bad reputations. If you don't have a good reputation, it doesn't necessarily mean you have a bad reputation: it could be neutral or nonexistent.

Hope this helps.