June 2014 LSAT Section 2 Question 6

The word "loophole" is a loaded, partisan word, one that implies wrongdoing and scandal. When "loophole" creeps into ...

AndrewArabie on April 23, 2023

Answer choice A

P: the word "loophole" is a loaded partisan term that immediately implies wrong doing If "A" was P2: Using a loophole never constitutes wrongdoing P3: using "loophole" will make a news report read like an editorial. C: so don't use loophole unless you also have evidence of wrongdoing. That seems pretty strong to me. Why is it wrong?

Replies

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Emil-Kunkin on April 25, 2023

Hi, we're looking to find a reason to prove that papers shouldn't use the term loophole without proof of wrongdoing.

While I think A would strengthen the argument (in fact it's a pretty good defensive strengthener, rebutting the possible counter that using a loophole actually is misconduct) this kind of principle question is really more of a sufficient assumption. There is a big flaw here, although it's not necessarily easy to see. The author concluded that papers SHOULDN'T do something. Whenever we have a prescription like that we should be careful. The only way to prove that something should or should not happen is if we have a premise that explicitly tells us we shouldn't do that. While it may make sense to me that papers shouldn't use a term that makes them seem like their editorializing, that has never been established. I agree with that statement, but if you read the paper, it's clear that many do not follow this- and that's not even considering all-editorial papers like the economist. While I agree with the argument, it's flawed because it relies on the unstated assumption that papers shouldn't use a term that connotes a sense misconduct without proof of misconduct.

AndrewArabie on April 26, 2023

Thank you, Emil. I normally do treat principle questions as sufficient assumption questions. I hesitate to say its invariably the case we should treat them the same but do you think that a good rule of thumb would be to first treat principle question as sufficient assumption instead of general strengthen? Or do you think the two question types are treated uncommon enough that they don't warrant the same approach?

AndrewArabie on April 26, 2023

let me rephrase that last sentence: Or do you think the two questions are treated differently often enough that they don't warrant the same approach?

Emil-Kunkin on May 11, 2023

Good question: I think that there are enough examples of principle strengthen questions where the right answer only gets to like 95 percent rather than the 100 percent needed for a real sufficient assumption question that I wouldn't fully treat them as sufficient assumptions. While it is close, I personally tend to treat them as like a "strong strengther" with the caveat that potentially something less strong could still do the trick.