Return to Blog Homepage

LR – Editorial

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!


Submit a Comment

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.