Which assumption is needed for the author's claim that cynics 'lighten the burden' on liars?
It is tempting to say that all politicians lie and so none can be blamed. This is a convenient piece of cynicism. If every politician lies, then the voter has no way of distinguishing between a stretched statistic and a fabricated claim. Yet the difference matters. A politician who emphasises favourable facts and omits the rest is behaving as every advocate does; one who asserts what he knows to be false is damaging the shared record on which debate depends. The first deserves scrutiny; the second deserves penalty. By lumping the two together, cynics lighten the burden on the second kind, who would be delighted to be told that nothing can be done.
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: A. That some politicians do assert things they know to be false
- Step 1: If no one told outright lies, there would be no second kind whose burden could be lightened.
- Step 2: So the existence of knowing falsehoods is assumed.
Answer
That some politicians do assert things they know to be false.
Why not the others: The author denies all are liars, and says nothing about voter belief, statistics' reliability or journalists.
Practise more Political ethics.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed LNAT mock tests.