LSAT 38, Logical Reasoning II, Q8, LSATHacks

QUESTION TEXT: Politician: My opponent says our zoning laws…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: The politician argues his opponent is wrong.

REASONING: The opponent doesn’t practice what he preaches.

ANALYSIS: This is an ad hominem attack. That never makes for a good argument.

___________

1. There wasn’t really any characterization of his opponent’s lifestyle: he just said he lived in the country. He didn’t say “beautiful countryside” or anything like that.
2. Huh? The argument didn’t hinge on where apartment buildings could be built.
3. This is irrelevant, just as the opponent’s living situation is irrelevant. We should only care about the quality of the argument.
4. CORRECT. The argument is good or bad because of its reasoning. It doesn’t matter how the opponent lives. 
5. This is irrelevant, just as it is irrelevant that he now lives in a house. We need to assess an argument’s reasons instead. 

LawHub Order

LawHub Order

---