LSAT Explanation PT 30, S4, Q23: When investigators discovered that the director

LSAT Question Stem

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the investigators' claim? 

Logical Reasoning Question Type

This is a Principle question. 

Correct Answer

The correct answer to this question is C. 

LSAT Question Complete Explanation

Let's first analyze the argument in the passage and identify its structure. The passage describes a situation where the director of a charity has overstated the number of people his charity had helped. When this deception was discovered, the director accepted responsibility. However, the investigators also claimed that journalists were as much to blame as the director for inflating the charity's reputation, since they had naïvely accepted what the director told them and simply reported the numbers as facts.

The structure of the argument is as follows:

1. Premise: The director of the charity overstated the number of people helped.

2. Premise: The director accepted responsibility for the deception.

3. Premise: Journalists accepted and reported the director's numbers without verifying them.

4. Conclusion: Journalists are as much to blame as the director for inflating the charity's reputation.

An "Evaluate" question for this argument could be: "Did the journalists have a duty to verify the information provided by the director before reporting it?"

Now, let's discuss the question type and what it's asking us to do. The question is a Principle question, which means we need to find a principle that helps justify the investigators' claim. In this case, the principle should bridge the gap between the journalists' actions and the conclusion that they are as much to blame as the director.

Let's go through each answer choice:

a) This answer choice focuses on the obligation of people working for a charity to be honest. However, it doesn't address the journalists' responsibility or their role in inflating the charity's reputation. Therefore, it doesn't help justify the investigators' claim.

b) This answer choice suggests that someone who knowingly aids a liar is also a liar. However, the passage doesn't imply that the journalists knowingly aided the director in his deception. They simply reported the numbers without verifying them. So, this answer choice doesn't help justify the investigators' claim.

c) This answer choice states that anyone who presents a story as factual without verifying it is no less responsible for the consequences of that story than anyone else. In other words, the journalists, by reporting the director's numbers without verification, are at least as responsible as the director for the consequences. This principle directly addresses the gap in the argument and helps justify the investigators' claim, making it the correct answer.

d) This answer choice compares the blame for lying to advance one's career versus lying to promote a good cause. While it discusses blame, it doesn't address the specific issue of the journalists' responsibility for reporting unverified information. Therefore, it doesn't help justify the investigators' claim.

e) This answer choice focuses on accepting responsibility for a wrongful act and its effect on the blame. While the director did accept responsibility, this doesn't address the journalists' role in the deception or their level of blame. Thus, it doesn't help justify the investigators' claim.

In conclusion, the correct answer is (C), as it provides a principle that helps justify the investigators' claim by bridging the gap between the journalists' actions and the conclusion that they are as much to blame as the director for inflating the charity's reputation.