QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Parallel Reasoning
CONCLUSION: We should demolish the building.
REASONING: Bad people with bad motives say we should save the building. [i.e. the local historical society]
ANALYSIS: This argument is pure ad hominem. The fact that people we dislike say one thing doesn’t mean we should do another. What if the local historical society opposed the murder of infants. Should we kill babies? (No!)
To quickly solve this question, skim through the answers, and see which ones says “these people say one thing, so we should do the opposite”.
The part about old buildings blocking economic health is a distraction. Yes, we might overprotect old buildings. But, that also doesn’t mean every old building should be destroyed. So the information about the historical society’s tastes has no bearing on actual cost/benefit tradeoffs.
- This doesn’t have an ad hominem. And it seems to be against the spirit of the stimulus. The stimulus said “don’t preserve, it costs too much”. This says “do preserve, no matter the cost.”
- The same as A. There’s no ad hominem, and this argument argues for preservation. The stimulus was for the destruction of heritage.
- CORRECT. This matches. We don’t like beauticians’ motives….so we should do the opposite of what they say! That’s pure ad hominem.
- This argument says we should listen to the critics. In the stimulus, we were supposed to ignore the critics.
- I don’t see how this relates to the stimulus. It describes a slippery slope argument: a small start can lead to a big problem.
The stimulus was only talking about one building, and had no slippery slope.
Want advanced LR strategies? → Try the LR Mastery Seminar
Graeme shows how 170+ scorers do LR in real time. Satisfaction guaranteed!