Libel is defined as damaging the reputation of someone by making false statements. Ironically, strong laws against li...

shunhe on December 21, 2020

Hi @dana12,

Thanks for the question! So we’re being asked here for a valid principle that most helps to justify the reasoning in the argument. In other words, this is essentially a strengthen with sufficient premise, principle version. Now, what does the stimulus tell us? It defines libel, and then says that ironically, strong laws against libel make it impossible for people to have good reputations. Why? Because no one will say anything bad about public figures when there are strong libel laws.

Now we need something to get us to the conclusion, which is the statement that begins with “ironically.” (A) tells us that the absence of laws against libel makes it possible for everyone in the public eye to have a good reputation. But the stimulus was about when there is a presence of laws against libel and saying no one can have a good reputation, so this answer choice (talking about the possibility of everyone having a good reputation when there aren’t good libel laws) is addressing a completely different situation. (A) doesn't preclude the possibility of there being libel laws, and it still being possible for everyone, or at least some people, to have a good reputation. And since it doesn’t compel the conclusion, it’s not the correct answer.

Hope this helps! Feel free to ask any other questions that you might have.