Travis is a public relations consultant for the local mayor$$s office. A large part of his job involves advising the mayor$$s staff on public opinion and assisting in preparing public speeches for the mayor himself. Recently, the city has seen a fierce debate over the state of the city$$s water system. The majority of the mayor$$s office $($including the mayor$)$ is against appropriating funds to overhaul the city$$s water system, while many community leaders favor it$.$ Travis and the mayor$$s office have recently been given an independent study that indicates there will be significant health risks to the population if renovations are not made to the city$$s antiquated water system; however, the mayor is preparing to deliver a speech that states the exact opposite of the study. Travis faces an ethical dilemma: Should he discredit the mayor$$s speech and risk losing his job, or say nothing and attempt to dissuade the mayor without revealing that the speech contained false information?

Questions

$1.$ What ethical rule is the mayor breaking in this example?

$2.$ How could Travis dissuade the mayor from moving forward with this speech?

$3.$ What element of Plato$$s ethos, pathos, and logos is being violated here?

$4.$ Is there ever a time when omission of a fact would not be unethical in a presentation?