Self-study
Genevieve: Support Increasing costs have led commercial airlines to cut back on airplane maintenance. █████ ██████████ ██ ██████ ████████ ████ ███ ██ ███ ███████ ███████ ███████ █████ ███████████ ███ █████████████ ███ █████ ███ █████ ███████ ██ ██ ████████ █████ ██████ ██ ████ ███ ██ ███ ██████ █████ █████ ███
███████ ████ █████████ ███ ██ ██████ ███ █ ███ ██████ ██████ ████ ██████████ ████ ███ ████████ ████ ████████ ████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ████████ ████ ████ ████ ███████
Argumentum Ad Hominem
The argumentum ad hominem – literally “arguing to the person” – is a common flaw on the LSAT (and in the law, by the way): just because someone is a hypocrite or a douchebag or a fool does not mean they’re wrong.
Harold admits Genevieve’s argument is solid, but dismisses her conclusion because she’s not following her own advice. Harold needs to be more like the Dude:
Our correct answer will mirror this flawed logic – it’ll dismiss someone’s well-reasoned conclusion because that person is a hypocrite. (“You’re an asshole, therefore you’re wrong.”)
3.
Which one of the following ██████ ██ █ ████████████ █████████ ████ ███████ ██ ████ ████ ██ ██████████ █████ ██ ██████████
a
David says that ███ ███ ████ ██ ███ ████ █████ ███ ██ ███ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ██ █ ███████ ██████ ███ ████████
The logic here is much more reasonable than the stimulus’. If David hasn’t seen the film himself, that undermines his standing to critique the film. It makes him a less relevant authority.
b
A long time ███ █████ ██████ ██ █ █████ ███ ██ ████ █████ ███ ███ ███████ ███████ ███ ██ ██████ ████ ███ █████ ██ ██████ ████ █████████ ████ ███ ██████ ████████
(B) fails on “so I’ll cook something else for dinner tonight.” To match, (B) should say “so her way of cooking lamb must not be that great after all.”
“Medical reasons” also undermines Maria’s supposed hypocrisy.
c
Susan has been ██████ ██ ████████ ██ ██ ██ ████ ████████ ████ ████ ████████ ████ ██████ █████ █████ ███ ████ ████ ███ ████ ███ █████ ███ ███████████ ██ █ ███████ ███████ ████
To match, (C) should feature a solid argument from Susan about why climbing is safe, which the author dismisses because Susan doesn’t climb.
Instead, we just have an unsupported claim from Susan about why climbing is safe, which the author dismisses because of direct evidence undermining that claim.
d
Pat has shown ██ ████████ ████ ██████ ████ ██████ ███ █████ ██████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ███ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ████ ██████ ███ █ ███████ ███████ ███ █████ ███ ██████ ████ ████ ███ █████ ███████████
Pat offers up a solid argument for why we should eat veggies, but the author dismisses that argument because Pat is a hypocrite.
That’s argumentum ad hominem, baby!
e
Gabriel has all ███ ██████████████ ██ ████ █████████ ███ ███ ███ ███ ███ ████ ████████ ████ ███████████ ███ █ ███████ ███████ ██ ██████ ████ ████ ███████ ████ ██ ██████ ██ █ ███████ ████████ ██████ ███ ███████████ ███ █████████
(E) is off-base from the jump because Gabriel isn’t making an argument for the author to dismiss – instead, the whole point is to make a personal judgment about Gabriel’s character.
The author also decides not to hire Gabriel because of direct evidence that hiring him wouldn’t be that great, rather than some alleged hypocrisy (which, again, would actually be relevant information in this particular case).