睡熊的难题1：LSAT-10-4-19 迷惑的假设

睡熊

19. Marcus: For most ethical dilemmas the journalist is likely to face, traditional journalistic ethics is clear, adequate, and essentially correct. For example, when journalists have uncovered newsworthy information, they should go to press with it as soon as possible. No delay motivated by the journalists' personal or professional interests is permissible.
     Anita: Well, Marcus, of course interesting and important information should be brought before the public - that is a journalist's job. But in the typical case, where a journalist has some information but is in a quandary about whether it is yet important or "newsworthy," this guidance is inadequate.

In order to conclude properly from Anita's statements that Marcus' general claim about traditional journalistic ethics is incorrect, it would have to be assumed that
(A) whether a piece of information is or is not newsworthy can raise ethical dilemmas for journalists.
(B) there are circumstances in which it would be ethically wrong for a journalist to go to press with legitimately acquired, newsworthy information.
(C) the most serious professional dilemmas that a journalist is likely to face are not ethical dilemmas
(D) there are no ethical dilemmas that a journalist is likely to face that would not be conclusively resolved by an adequate system of journalistic ethics
(E) For a system of journalistic ethics to be adequate it must be able to provide guidance in every case in which a journalist must make a professional decision

劳驾帮忙看看这道题怎么解决不知从何下手，先谢了！假设呀假设，Sign!

[此贴子已经被作者于2003-11-22 14:20:24编辑过]

xiang_y

Marcus' argument
Conclusion: Traditional journalistic ethics is clear, adequate, and essentially correct, when journalist is facing an ethical dilemmas.
Evidence: An example.

Anita's argument
Conclusion: Traditional journalistic ethics is inadquate, when journalist is facing an ethical dilemmas.
Evidence: An contradictionary example.

Anita 举出一个反例来证明Marcus' conclusion 不成立， 那么她一定假设: 如果Marcus' conclusion is right, it must be right in any case. No contradictionary case should exit.
That's what answer E said

睡熊

xiang_y, xie xie!

It troubles me when choosing between (D) and (E). I agree with you on (E), but still (D) is likely to be the one. Can (D) be explanined as:

Ethics Adequate => Dilema conclusively resovled ?

If yes, then it is also likely to be an assumption, what do you think, thanks again.

xiang_y

以下是引用睡熊在2003-11-21 9:32:00的发言：
xiang_y, xie xie!

It troubles me when choosing between (D) and (E). I agree with you on (E), but still (D) is likely to be the one. Can (D) be explanined as:

Ethics Adequate => Dilema conclusively resovled ?

If yes, then it is also likely to be an assumption, what do you think, thanks again.

Good question. 区别D和E的关键在于在Anita的argument中，”whether the news is yet important or newsworthy,"  是一个ethics dilema, 还是一个professional decision.
我认为决定一个新闻是不是重要或有新闻价值是一个professional decision. 这一点可以从
Marcus的ethics dilema example中看出来，“For example, when journalists have uncovered newsworthy information, they should go to press with it as soon as possible. No delay motivated by the journalists' personal or professional interests is permissible". 对於已经证明有newsworthy的information， 是不是出於journalists' personal or professional interests 而delay the delivery is a ethics dilema. But deciding whether the news is important or newsworthy is not a ethics dilema, but a professional decision.

Hope this help.

睡熊

This helps a lot, thank you very much xiang_y

mythicalman

你们在唱双簧啊。我查了答案是A
E里的professional decision是题干里根本没有的概念，而assumption是必要条件，从题干里推不出来，怎么会是正确答案。
大哥，以后问问题，千万写清楚正确答案。我们不是在做智力竞赛游戏。

番茄炒蛋

呵呵，老my得火气不要那么大嘛
原题里得首先说For most ethical dilemmas the journalist is likely to face, traditional journalistic ethics is clear, adequate
然后第二个人又说a quandary about whether it is yet important or "newsworthy," this guidance is inadequate.
那么要是能否定第一个，第二个人说得事情必须是和第一个人说得是同一件事情才可能是有效得否定，所以选A
以后还是先把答案写出来吧，真会误导得

mariezhu

也请大家不要唯答案是从，我做这道题的时候也觉得答案应该是E，原因如下：

Marcus：traditional journalistic ethics is clear, adequate, and essentially correct
             eg: newsworthy information should be published immediately without delay motivated by personal or professional interests.

Anita: AGREE that interesting and important information should be brought before the public
         But: IN THE TYPICAL CASE, when journalist cannot decide whether the information is important or "newsworthy," this guidance is inadequate

很明显Anita在反对时，举出一个特例(A TYPICAL CASE)说明虽然有新闻价值的东西立即向公众发表是对的，但是在无法判断其是否有新闻价值时，这一观点是不恰当的。
其中的assumption显然是认为用这个typical case 就可反驳marcus的观点，所以是E：For a system of journalistic ethics to be adequate it must be able to provide guidance in EVERY CASE in which a journalist must make a professional decision.如果将之取非，显然对anita的反驳起了削弱作用，正好可以成为marcus用来反驳anita的论据。这里的professional decision不能被视为与提干无关的东西，事实上，它只不过是另一种说法，表示the journalist decide to publish a piece of news or not.

cranberry

e所说的并不是不对,只是作为假设,它只能是结论成立的必要条件而非其它,文章很明白的说了所谓前提是在"记者所面临的大部分道德两难问题的时候",而马库斯认为传统职业道德是足以提供解决方法的,而安妮塔的意见是,在面临判断是否有新闻价值时,这个职业道德就无法用.我们看到他们说的似乎是不同的两个事情,一个说的是dilemma,一个说的是判断是否有新闻价值,如果要使得安妮塔的理论成立,那么一定要弥合gap,所以a是答案.E的错误在于它的范围超过了文章所说的内容,比较general并非是必要条件.

xiang_y

关于出题时是否一定要给正确答案， 我想说一点： 你如果觉得没有答案的题会浪费时间， 会产生误导， 你可以选择不回帖。 你如果觉得没有答案的题会帮助自己独立思考，理清思路， 你可以选择回帖。你有选择给不给正确答案的自由， 我有选择回不回帖的自由，大家有选择看不看这些讨论的自由。

关于上面这道题， 我又仔细想了想。在Anita的argument里，她据出反例来试图证明Marcus's conclusion 是错误的，她实际上作了两层assumption.
首先，此反例必须属于ethical dilemmas situation。(answer A)
其次， adequate ethic system must be able to provide guidance in every ethical dilemma case.
第二层assumption建立在第一层assumption之上，因为如果此反例不属于ethical dilemmas situation。那么它是无法起到反证的作用的，就好像两人说的不是一个东西。
Answer E说出了部分第二层assumption，但整个argument 讨论的是traditional journalistic ethics system 在 journalist facing ethical dilemmas (NOT professional decision)时，是否adequate, 所以E是不对的。 实际上D说出了整个第二层assumption。但因为象我上面说的， 第一层assumption是基础， 所以A对。

如有不同意见， 可以继续讨论， 至少我觉得这些讨论对我是有益的。