I thought one of the answers was going to be that "the argument attacks the person making a claim rather than the claim itself". Got it right but took a second.
I got it E right within the time - I think the phrasing is a bit confusing, but the way I see it, E is right because the argument attacks the proposing politician on the basis of their own previous actions. But forgets that yeah just because they received funds themselves in the past, doesn't mean they can do something ethically to prevent this from happening in the future. We can't just target the guy for taking previous monies, if his entire proposal is to change that. To me it seems like the politician is aware of the issue since he's gotten funds before, so he wants to change that and going forward all future politicians will not have the possibility of this ethical issue/conflict of interest. So the author just looks at the past, but doesn't realize the intention is to avoid what that own politician did so that others do not. So that is how I got E.
I'm a bit confused as to how the phrasing of E. is an example of a source attack, which is the flaw in this reasoning. It seems to me like even if E. WAS NOT true, the argument would still have the source attack flaw.
E. says: "overlooks the fact that Sigerson's proposal would apply only to the future conduct of city politicians."
If Sigerson's proposal was retrospective, i.e. it applied to past conduct, wouldn't the argument still be flawed?
I'm imagining a scenario where the stimulus goes something like this: "Sigerson argues that the city should adopt ethical guidelines that retrospectively penalize politicians who accept campaign contributions from companies that do business with the city. Sigerson's proposal is dishonest, however, because he has taken contributions from such companies throughout his career in city politics."
This argument is STILL flawed because the argument is based on Sigerson's personal character/past acts, and does not actually challenge the reasoning of the argument. It is not dishonest for Sigerson to be arguing in favor of his own punishment for his own misdeed; in fact, it is arguably very honest.
The problem in the original argument is not whether Sigerson's proposal would apply to past or future actions, but rather that's Sigerson's actions have no bearing on the proposal regardless. So. E. doesn't seem to actually be addressing the core flaw in the argument. Even if we "fixed" the argument according to E., wouldn't it still be flawed?
How would the correction of D he made make it the right answer? He said we could edit it by saying "rejects a proposal on the grounds that the person offering it has committed the same act that the proposal is trying to prevent" but didn't he also say that we can't use his past actions as they don't matter if the proposal is for the future? And isn't that exact reason why the correct answer is the correct one? I might totally be overlooking something but I was confused.
#feedback Broken record and all, but show all the answer choices before telling us which one is correct. It feels like such a waste of time to listen to 4 minutes of stimulus analysis only to be immediately told which answer is correct without being able to apply what we just listened to.
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
28 comments
I love this flaw, I feel like it is the easiest to identify
I love when one of my predictions is in the answer choices
I thought one of the answers was going to be that "the argument attacks the person making a claim rather than the claim itself". Got it right but took a second.
I got it E right within the time - I think the phrasing is a bit confusing, but the way I see it, E is right because the argument attacks the proposing politician on the basis of their own previous actions. But forgets that yeah just because they received funds themselves in the past, doesn't mean they can do something ethically to prevent this from happening in the future. We can't just target the guy for taking previous monies, if his entire proposal is to change that. To me it seems like the politician is aware of the issue since he's gotten funds before, so he wants to change that and going forward all future politicians will not have the possibility of this ethical issue/conflict of interest. So the author just looks at the past, but doesn't realize the intention is to avoid what that own politician did so that others do not. So that is how I got E.
damn, time to close the laptop for the day, no idea how E works here lmao
I'm a bit confused as to how the phrasing of E. is an example of a source attack, which is the flaw in this reasoning. It seems to me like even if E. WAS NOT true, the argument would still have the source attack flaw.
E. says: "overlooks the fact that Sigerson's proposal would apply only to the future conduct of city politicians."
If Sigerson's proposal was retrospective, i.e. it applied to past conduct, wouldn't the argument still be flawed?
I'm imagining a scenario where the stimulus goes something like this: "Sigerson argues that the city should adopt ethical guidelines that retrospectively penalize politicians who accept campaign contributions from companies that do business with the city. Sigerson's proposal is dishonest, however, because he has taken contributions from such companies throughout his career in city politics."
This argument is STILL flawed because the argument is based on Sigerson's personal character/past acts, and does not actually challenge the reasoning of the argument. It is not dishonest for Sigerson to be arguing in favor of his own punishment for his own misdeed; in fact, it is arguably very honest.
The problem in the original argument is not whether Sigerson's proposal would apply to past or future actions, but rather that's Sigerson's actions have no bearing on the proposal regardless. So. E. doesn't seem to actually be addressing the core flaw in the argument. Even if we "fixed" the argument according to E., wouldn't it still be flawed?
#help
I need help with identifying a sufficient condition and a necessary condition
Philosophy has slightly helped me here. This is the fallacy of ad hominen I believe.
"I have stolen many cars in the past"
-J.Y Ping
I thought E at first but it was the word only that threw me off.
How would the correction of D he made make it the right answer? He said we could edit it by saying "rejects a proposal on the grounds that the person offering it has committed the same act that the proposal is trying to prevent" but didn't he also say that we can't use his past actions as they don't matter if the proposal is for the future? And isn't that exact reason why the correct answer is the correct one? I might totally be overlooking something but I was confused.
Sigerson couldn't say no to my bribes to build 3 new Child Rat Casinos in the city
Which lessons in this section talks about sufficient and necessary conditions? I literally can't find them anywhere.
#feedback Broken record and all, but show all the answer choices before telling us which one is correct. It feels like such a waste of time to listen to 4 minutes of stimulus analysis only to be immediately told which answer is correct without being able to apply what we just listened to.
weird question