LR Question 4 Explanation
QUESTION TEXT: Editorial: It is common to find essays offering arguments…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: Our nation is fine.
REASONING: Writers who say our nation is in trouble are merely showing their own whiny mental state.
ANALYSIS: The editorial is using an ad hominem argument. More than that, it’s a paradox. It’s saying any complaint shows the complainers is wrong. No need to look at the complaint itself.
So, if there was a problem, how could you ever tell someone? The instant you state there is a problem, you’re labelled a defective whiner.
___________
- CORRECT. Indeed. The editorial dismisses the arguments merely from their tone. So it never examines the arguments themselves.
- Which two situations? The only situation being discussed was the state o the country. The only other possible situation was the state of the critics minds. But the author clearly stated they think there is a difference there: sad minds, happy country.
- The stimulus never mentions political or cultural decline. It only mentions decline in general. This answer invents concepts that weren’t in the stimulus.
- This is strange. It means the nation might be “neutral”. Which is consistent with the author’s position. They merely argued that the nation was not in decline. They didn’t actually say “thriving”: that’s only in this answer.
- This is a different flaw. This flaw involves proving your opponents right by arguing badly.
Example of flaw: Some say I am too argumentative. So I’m going to drive over to their house and argue with them until they see I am a reasonable person.
Recap: The question begins with “Editorial: It is common to find essays offering arguments”. It is a Flawed Reasoning question. Learn more about LSAT Flaw questions in our guide to LSAT Logical Reasoning question types.
More Resources for Flaw Questions
- Flaw drills: Use these to practice making examples of abstract flaws.
- Intro Course lesson: This intro course lesson covers Flaw questions.
- Mastery Seminar lesson: This LR Mastery seminar lesson covers flaw questions.
Hi there,
When you say, “More than that, it’s a paradox. It’s saying any complaint shows the complainer is wrong. No need to look at the complaint itself,” you don’t mean that this is circular reasoning, correct?
I ask because I think an argument can’t simultaneously be a circular reasoning argument and an ad hominem argument. Am I understanding this correctly?
Hi! A couple things. First, you’re right that Graeme is NOT referring to circular reasoning in the analysis section. “Any complaint shows the complainer is wrong” just points out the ad hominem nature of the reasoning. The editor creates a paradoxical situation where any critique of the nation’s condition is invalidated simply because it is made by someone who appears anxious. This doesn’t mean the argument is circular.
Second, TECHNICALLY, an argument could be both circular and ad hominem at once (like in a real world setting, arguments often have multiple flaws). But you’re right that this will NOT be the case in the LSAT. LSAT arguments are crafted to highlight a distinct, primary flaw for you to identify.
So, yes, ad hominem is the only relevant flaw here.
Thank you Aaminah!