How does the author respond to the claim that wider protection invites malicious leaks?
Employees who reveal wrongdoing inside their organisations are often praised in public and punished in private. Legislation that protects them is welcome, but it is usually drafted too narrowly. Many laws cover only disclosures made first to the employer, as if the culprit were the natural recipient of the complaint. Anyone who has watched an institution close ranks knows how naive this is. A worker who reports a fraud to the very managers who profit from it may be dismissed before any investigation begins. Protection should therefore extend to disclosures made directly to regulators and, as a last resort, to the press. Critics say this invites malicious leaks, but a rule that punishes false claims can deal with that problem without discouraging honest ones.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: C. By saying penalties for false claims can address malice without deterring honest disclosures
- Step 1: The last sentence states the reply: a rule punishing false claims.
- Step 2: It targets malice but leaves honest claims alone.
Answer
By saying penalties for false claims can address malice without deterring honest disclosures.
Why not the others: The author does not deny leaks, dismiss them, restrict the press or retreat from the proposal.
Practise more Whistleblowing.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.