QUESTION TEXT: Kevin: My barber shop sells an herbal…
QUESTION TYPE: Flawed Reasoning
CONCLUSION: The herbal supplement does not work as Kevin’s barber claims.
REASONING: Kevin’s barber has a financial incentive to convince him to buy the supplement.
ANALYSIS: Sabine’s argument here makes an ad hominem error, which is common on the LSAT. It’s based on the motives of the barber – “He makes money if you buy it, so he must be lying to convince you”.
But that doesn’t work. The barber’s motives have nothing to do with the actual product itself. Sure, you might be a bit skeptical, but it’s extreme to definitively declare that the barber is lying.
Suppose you’re looking to buy a sports drink. One brand has packaging that reads, “Contains electrolytes to keep you hydrated!”. The manufacturer makes money when you buy the drink, but that isn’t enough to conclude that there are no electrolytes or that you won’t be hydrated. The same idea applies here.
___________
- This is not why Sabine discounts the barber’s claim.
- Sabine never claimed that the supplement was harmful, only that it was not effective.
- Sabine is not rejecting the explanation of how the product works, she is rejecting the claim altogether. So this answer doesn’t apply.
- Sabine is drawing a conclusion about the barber’s motives for the claim, but her flaw isn’t that there’s no evidence that he made the claim. Kevin already provided evidence for the claim.
- CORRECT. Sabine’s only given reason for rejecting the barber’s claim is that he benefits when someone buys the product. But, as explained above, this isn’t good enough.
Free Logical Reasoning lesson
Get a free sample of the Logical Reasoning Mastery Seminar. Learn tips for solving LR questions
Leave a Reply