Q9 - The journalistic practice of fabricating

[willaminic]

Hey can anyone help me about the answer choice C? I am really confused by its wording...i pick D though.

I think this question is quite difficult...

[giladedelman]

Thanks for posting! I agree, this is a tricky one!

Let's break down the argument. Luckily, the core is pretty easy to spot: "since this practice avoids the more serious misrepresentation that would occur if people's exact words were quoted but their ideas only partially expressed, it is entirely defensible."

We have to unpack this a little bit. "This practice" refers to fabricating remarks and then printing them within quotation marks, as if they were real quotes. So the argument is saying that this is okay, because if you just used somebody's real words, the meaning would be less clear.

Let's think like a debater. Imagine we're arguing against this person -- what could we say? Well, how about this: who says quoting someone's exact words without clarification is the only alternative to fabricating remarks? I mean, couldn't we just paraphrase? Or some combination of quotes and paraphrasing? That's a pretty big alternative the argument overlooks.

So that's why (C) is correct: the argument only discredits one alternative, namely, printing someone's exact words.

(A) is incorrect because the argument doesn't undermine anyone's authority.

(B) tempted me, but the argument doesn't simply appeal to the prestige of journalism. Rather, it cites a specific example of how journalists would do a better job of something.

(D) is incorrect because the argument never says this tactic is necessary, just that it is better in a certain way.

(E) is out because the opponent never concedes that this practice is sometimes okay.

Does that answer your question?

[austindyoung]

I think there's also something else going on here- let me know if I'm out of bounds:

The first sentence is actually more important than I thought. I thought it was awkward that (C) stated that the Flaw was that the author of the passage did not offer any alternatives to fabricating remarks (FR).

But why is this a flaw? He never says that it's the only alternative; he just says that it's defensible because it is more representative than using direct quotes.

I thought there there was an assumed journalistic ethic present throughout this question- but there isn't- the test-writers smartly allowed for the non-ethical test-taker by stating, in the first sentence "has been decried as a form of unfair misrepresentation."

The author is stating that, because fabricating "avoids a more serious misrepresentation" those who have decried FR are incorrect- actually, he states, "it is entirely defensible."

Yet, the Flaw comes into play because the author doesn't mention any other alternatives. If there are other ways to "distill those ideas" and make them sound better- then there is a possibility that even though this practice conveys ideas better- it is still a misrepresentation, and not "entirely defensible" as he states.

So, at first I thought (C) was weird, thinking, "Why does the author need to discredit other alternatives to the practice of FR? Is it because we are supposed to assume that FR is ethically wrong?" No- its because if there are other alternatives, then FR could be an "unfair misrepresentation," and his conclusion is that it is not, and therefore is "entirely defensible." Other alternatives open the door for his conclusion to be wrong.

At least, that's how I finally ended up looking at it. If I missed something or am wrong in any way, I'll be glad to hear about it

[einuoa]

I'm still a bit confused with the wording in this question, especially the conclusion's "entirely defensible"

Answer choice (C) 's wording confuses me.
"offering as an adequate defense of a practice an observation" - fabricating avoids the more serious misrepresentation

"that discredits only one of several possible alternatives to that practice" - printing words as they are

Did I understand this answer choice right?
So the questionable technique is that it discredits printing words as they are but it doesn't discredit other possibilities?

Does it need to discredit other possibilities before saying that fabrication is entirely defensible? Can't there be other alternatives to fabricating words, yet still have fabricating words be still entirely defensible?

Thanks!

[ohthatpatrick]

You're super close to the correct understanding.

Flaw answer choices often just describe the premise/conclusion.

You'll see a ton of flaw answer choices in forms such as:

(A) Infers _[conc]_ on the basis of __[prem]__

(B) Infers, from the claim that _[prem]_, that __[conc]___

(C) Concludes that __[conc]__ on the grounds that __[prem]__

With any of these types of answer choices, make sure you first identify which half of the sentence is being inferred/concluded and see if this matches the conclusion.

Find the basis/grounds/claim part of the sentence and try to match it to the premise.

I love these Matching answer choices, because if they match they're right, if they don't they're wrong. Super easy to deal with.

(C) is easily one of the worst I've seen, though.

If I said that
"He offered X as an adequate defense/proof of Y", which half would be the conclusion, which would be the premise?

X would be the Premise. It's the basis/grounds for defending/proving Y.

Well now they take that simple syntax and mix it up.
It's like taking
"He claimed that he was right because his Mom agreed with him"
and re-serving it to us (equivalently) as
"offering as proof that he was right an assertion that his Mom agreed"

So when (C) says "offering as an adequate defense of a practice", it's trying to match the conclusion: "Therefore, the practice of fabricating words is defensible".

What does he offer as defense?
an observation that discredits only one of several possible alternatives

"the practice of quoting exact spoken remarks would increase the likelihood of misrepresentation".

Many people in this thread have been troubled that we don't seem to mention "several possible alternatives" ... however, it's implied we could
1. NOT use quotation marks around these fabricated remarks
2. Quote their exact words but supplement them with other ideas so that their ideas are FULLY expressed

Another gripe has been the idea that "just because other alternatives may exist, could THIS option still be defensible?"

It could; the flaw isn't that we KNOW the practice is indefensible. The flaw is that the author never convinced us the practice is defensible.

"People think I shouldn't have stolen that BMW. However, had I murdered someone for the money to buy my own BMW, I would have hurt more lives than I did by simply forcing someone to get a ride home and call his insurance company. Thus, my practice of stealing that BMW was entirely defensible."

Do you see how it can be cheating to cherry-pick a WORSE option and use that as you're only proof that the option you considered is a GOOD one?

Hope this helps.

[joewoo198256]

Thanks for posting! I agree, this is a tricky one!

Let's break down the argument. Luckily, the core is pretty easy to spot: "since this practice avoids the more serious misrepresentation that would occur if people's exact words were quoted but their ideas only partially expressed, it is entirely defensible."

We have to unpack this a little bit. "This practice" refers to fabricating remarks and then printing them within quotation marks, as if they were real quotes. So the argument is saying that this is okay, because if you just used somebody's real words, the meaning would be less clear.

Let's think like a debater. Imagine we're arguing against this person -- what could we say? Well, how about this: who says quoting someone's exact words without clarification is the only alternative to fabricating remarks? I mean, couldn't we just paraphrase? Or some combination of quotes and paraphrasing? That's a pretty big alternative the argument overlooks.

So that's why (C) is correct: the argument only discredits one alternative, namely, printing someone's exact words.

(A) is incorrect because the argument doesn't undermine anyone's authority.

(B) tempted me, but the argument doesn't simply appeal to the prestige of journalism. Rather, it cites a specific example of how journalists would do a better job of something.

(D) is incorrect because the argument never says this tactic is necessary, just that it is better in a certain way.

(E) is out because the opponent never concedes that this practice is sometimes okay.

Does that answer your question?

Crystal clear! Let's see the question stem first, the flaw here is about reasoning technique. What technique does the author use here? He approves the practice of fabricating remarks and he argues that if we don't allow this practice, we have to use the interviewee's direct quotes, which rarely express the ideas of interviewee. Yes the author discredit the later practice, but who says this is the only other way around? By discrediting the later practice can the author safely reach his conclusion that fabricating remarks is the best way to do? May be there is other practice that is better than fabricating quotes, but does the author discredit these possible practices? That is Choice C wants to say. Hope this can help.

[rouzbehsol]

Please tell me why the following reasoning is wrong, which I used and it misled me into thinking that alternatives might not be the main point here:

The stimulus says: "people's...remarks RARELY convey their ideas" and that "distillation of those ideas crafted" by "a skilled writer" will avoid that. Now my questions are:

1. Rarely convey their ideas, so is it sometimes possible for the speaker to convey their entire message without leaving anything behind?

2. Could the errors still in this case be made by that "skilled writer" in comprehending the message and writing it down?

Thanks