This is a Sufficient Assumption question, because we're asked for an answer that "justifies" the application of the principle. Let's start first by understanding the principle.

That turns out to be a tough task. The principle has so many different parts, and it's not clear just how many of the details of the principle will really matter in how it's applied. Ultimately, we may need to come back after reading the application to get a better handle on what we want to pay attention to in the principle. Once we do that, we should come away with the following understanding:

When should the author of an article that appeared in a magazine be allowed to respond in that magazine to harsh criticism of that article?

Path 1:

• The criticism was published in the same magazine in which the article appeared

Path 2:

• The criticism was published in a different magazine, AND
• The criticism is unfair

The application concludes that McFinton should be allowed to publish a response in Speculator's Digest to Wallace's most recent article. Why? Because that article is harshly critical of McFinton's essay on self-deception.

Let's examine each potential path to our conclusion.

Path 1: Was Wallace's article published in the same magazine as the one McFinton's essay appeared in? We don't know. We're not told anything about where either the article or the essay is published. So, to go down Path 1, we want to know that both the article and the essay were published in the Speculator's Digest. If we learn this information, we can conclude that McFinton should be allowed to publish a response in the Speculator's Digest.

Path 2: We don't know where the article or essay were published. And, we don't know whether Wallace's criticism was unfair. So, to go down Path 2, we want to know (1) Wallace's criticism was published somewhere besides Speculator's Digest, (2) McFinton's essay was published in Speculator's Digest, and (3) that Wallace's criticism was unfair.