LSAT 142 | Section 1 | Logical Reasoning: Q5

LR Question 5 Explanation

QUESTION TEXT: Critic: Fillmore, an influential television executive…

QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning

CONCLUSION: Fillmore is wrong.

REASONING: Fillmore’s argument benefits Fillmore.

ANALYSIS: This question makes an ad hominem flaw. The author notes that, as a television executive, Fillmore stands to benefit if very young children watch TV.

It’s fine to point out a conflict of interest. But that can’t be your entire argument: a conflict of interest proves nothing on its own. The critic didn’t show any evidence that Fillmore is actually wrong.

___________

1. This didn’t happen.
   Example of flaw: Fillmore said that children can benefit from TV (TV ➞ B). Therefore, Fillmore argued that only TV is beneficial for children (B ➞ TV).
2. This is a different flaw.
   Example of flaw: Fillmore said that TV is fine because there’s no evidence that it’s bad.
3. CORRECT. This correctly describes an ad  hominem flaw.
4. This is a different flaw.
   Example of flaw: TV is bad for children. My uncle Sam said so. He never had children, and he has never watched TV. But he’s pretty smart, so he must be right.
5. This is a different flaw. It’s very rare for an author to contradict themselves. In fact, this is so rare that it’s hard to come up with an example.
   Example of flaw: John says that dogs are the best pets and that cats are even better pets than dogs.