Editorial: The state auditor has come to our town to evaluate the town’s funds and look at our expenses in order to create a proposal to help eliminate wasteful spending. However, the town should not listen to this advisor, who in his youth was elected mayor and built a giant ice-skating ring that led to the bankruptcy of his town. He clearly knows nothing about wasteful spending. So, the town should give up any hope of reducing expenses based on the states auditor’s proposal.
Which one of the following is a questionable argumentative strategy employed in the editorial’s argument?
A. Rejecting a proposal on the grounds that a particular implementation of the proposal is likely to fail
B. Criticizing the source of a proposal rather than examining the claim itself
C. Taking a lack of evidence for a claim as evidence undermining that claim
D. Trying to win support for a proposal by playing on people’s fears of what could happen otherwise
E. It confuses a condition that is sufficient with one that is necessary
Answer
CORRECT ANSWER: B
EXPLANATION: Ad Hominem Flaw. Attacking the person instead of the argument
Want to receive daily LSAT practice delivered right into your inbox? Sign up here for our LSAT Question of the Day emails!
Related Posts
Search the Blog
Free LSAT Practice Account
Sign up for a free Blueprint LSAT account and get access to a free trial of the Self-Paced Course and a free practice LSAT with a detailed score report, mind-blowing analytics, and explanatory videos.
Learn More
Popular Posts
-
-
logic games Game Over: LSAC Says Farewell to Logic Games -
-
General LSAT Advice How to Get a 180 on the LSAT -
Entertainment Revisiting Elle's LSAT Journey from Legally Blonde