Critical Reasoning

The journalistic practice of fabricating remarks after an interview and printing them within quotation marks, as if they were the interviewee's own words, has been decried as a form of unfair misrepresentation. However, people's actual spoken remarks rarely convey their ideas as clearly as does a distillation of those ideas crafted, after an interview, by a skilled writer. Therefore, 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.

Which one of the following is a questionable technique used in the argument?

(A) answering an exaggerated charge by undermining the personal authority of those who made that charge

(B) claiming that the prestige of a profession provides ample grounds for dismissing criticisms of that profession

(C) offering as an adequate defense of a practice an observation that discredits only one of several possible alternatives to that practice

(D) concluding that a practice is right on the grounds that it is necessary

(E) using the opponent's admission that a practice is sometimes appropriate as conclusive proof that that practice is never inappropriate


Another convoluted one..don't forget to post your explanation..

I would go with option C. That actual remarks rarely convey actual ideas leaves a gap for other consequences. In explaining the grounds as justified by considering only the ideas conveyed, certainly overlooks other possibilities.

@sandy..

sorry I didnt quite get your explanation..

Could you please point out parts of the argument that allude to the following points in option (c)

* observation that is offered
* which particular alternative to the practice is this observation discrediting
* which are the several other possible alternatives that are implied here

i would have selected E on G-Day.

@siddus: No idea if i am correct. I am still waiting for the correct answer. Nez here is what i thought for going for Option C:

Practice is the fabrication of remarks by the journalists.

That actual spoken remarks rarely get conveyed with clarity is one of the possibility because of the mention of the word "rarely" which leaves the case of everytime being conveyed without clarity. The technique, e.g. crafting or fabricating by journalists, doesn't take into consideration all the implications of fabricating and hence is questionable.

hence Option C.

a. incorrect. personal authority is not undermined by author
b. incorrect. no relationship between criticism and authors conclusion
c. correct
d. incorrect.author conclusion is that the practice is defensible.
e.incorrect.author concludes that the practice is defensible

siddus wrote:The journalistic practice of fabricating remarks after an interview and printing them within quotation marks, as if they were the interviewee's own words, has been decried as a form of unfair misrepresentation. However, people's actual spoken remarks rarely convey their ideas as clearly as does a distillation of those ideas crafted, after an interview, by a skilled writer. Therefore, 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.

Which one of the following is a questionable technique used in the argument?

(A) answering an exaggerated charge by undermining the personal authority of those who made that charge

(B) claiming that the prestige of a profession provides ample grounds for dismissing criticisms of that profession

(C) offering as an adequate defense of a practice an observation that discredits only one of several possible alternatives to that practice

(D) concluding that a practice is right on the grounds that it is necessary

(E) using the opponent's admission that a practice is sometimes appropriate as conclusive proof that that practice is never inappropriate


Another convoluted one..don't forget to post your explanation..

IMO E

I am unable to understand C.

I feel that it should be D...


argument concludes that X is appropriate because it avoids misinterpretation of ideas ....ie the practice is necessary....

What do u guys say....

siddus wrote:The journalistic practice of fabricating remarks after an interview and printing them within quotation marks, as if they were the interviewee's own words, has been decried as a form of unfair misrepresentation. However, people's actual spoken remarks rarely convey their ideas as clearly as does a distillation of those ideas crafted, after an interview, by a skilled writer. Therefore, 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.

Which one of the following is a questionable technique used in the argument?

(A) answering an exaggerated charge by undermining the personal authority of those who made that charge

(B) claiming that the prestige of a profession provides ample grounds for dismissing criticisms of that profession

(C) offering as an adequate defense of a practice an observation that discredits only one of several possible alternatives to that practice

(D) concluding that a practice is right on the grounds that it is necessary

(E) using the opponent's admission that a practice is sometimes appropriate as conclusive proof that that practice is never inappropriate


Another convoluted one..don't forget to post your explanation..

I think the answer is D.
it basically says just because fabrication is needed to convey ideas more clearly, it is right [defensible]
the opponent of fabrication is opposing fabrication just because fabrication is wrong[unfair] , not because it inaccurately represents what is being said. no where in the passage the proponent says fabrication leads to inaccuracy.


C says that there are other alternatives than fabrication. but in the passage only fabrication and non fabrication is mentioned.

E. the opponent of fabrication never in the passage admits that fabrication is appropriate. it is the proponent who thinks fabrication is appropriate.

I would pick C..maybe one of the teachers can help us.

please post the OA along with the Q
I go with option (D)

siddus wrote:The journalistic practice of fabricating remarks after an interview and printing them within quotation marks, as if they were the interviewee's own words, has been decried as a form of unfair misrepresentation. However, people's actual spoken remarks rarely convey their ideas as clearly as does a distillation of those ideas crafted, after an interview, by a skilled writer. Therefore, 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.

Which one of the following is a questionable technique used in the argument?

(A) answering an exaggerated charge by undermining the personal authority of those who made that charge

(B) claiming that the prestige of a profession provides ample grounds for dismissing criticisms of that profession

(C) offering as an adequate defense of a practice an observation that discredits only one of several possible alternatives to that practice

(D) concluding that a practice is right on the grounds that it is necessary

(E) using the opponent's admission that a practice is sometimes appropriate as conclusive proof that that practice is never inappropriate


Another convoluted one..don't forget to post your explanation..

(A) answering an exaggerated charge by undermining the personal authority of those who made that charge (personal authority...not part of argu)

(B) claiming that the prestige of a profession provides ample grounds for dismissing criticisms of that profession (prestige..not part of argu)

(C) offering as an adequate defense of a practice an observation that discredits only one of several possible alternatives to that practice (provide only one alternative + no sign of 'discredit' of several others)

(D) concluding that a practice is right on the grounds that it is necessary (correct)

(E) using the opponent’s admission that a practice is sometimes appropriate as conclusive proof that that practice is never inappropriate (no mention abt opponents view that practice is appropriate)

[spoiler]IMO: D; time: 3mins[/spoiler]

OA is C

This is a method of reasoning question. This calls for a very keen observation of each and every word of the answer options.

Stimulus:

Journalistic practice of fabrication -- decried on the grounds that it is unfair misrepresentation.
But actual remarks seldom convey the idea as do distillation.
So since distillation avoids misrepresentation it is defensible.
To options
A- Never takes any person head on, so eliminated.
B- never talks about the prestige of journalism, eliminated
C- Reserve this
D- Never says the practice is necessary,eliminated
E- opponent has been cited, but this opponent never said the practice is appropriate in any case, eliminated.

Now explaining C,
How in the argument the author is defending his conclusion?(defense)
he says the practice avoids misrepresentation

So in effect, what is the alternative that has been cited?
misrepresentation

And the author discredits this in his argument. But in practice there might be a lot of other alternatives which were not cited by the author.

Please correct me if I'm wrong