PT83.S3.Q4 - Editorial: It is common to find essays offering

Logic Gainz

This question kind of screwed me because of how I got it wrong. It seems like being critical in this instance really played me for the worst!

After reading the stimulus, I did what any decent test taker would do, and got combative with the author. I mentally muttered to myself, "alright buddy, maybe these writers were 'frantic' because our nation is in decline!"

I want to be clear here. I could've said just about anything. I could've just as easily said, "Maybe these authors just drank a cup of coffee before writing their essays. That doesn't mean their arguments are invalid." But I didn't say this second retort. I said the first, and low and behold, I got sucked into answer choice E.

Answer A is right. It's kind of beautiful, because usually ad hominem flaws are easy to spot, but the LSAT writers did a number here with the language in A. It's roundabout, and doesn't explicitly state that the author fails to address the actual argument, but instead attacks the proponent of the argument. That language is normal for ad hominem flaws. This choice kind of duped me.

Check out E. It's literally playing off my first rebuttal. I mentally said that these guys could be anxious because our nation is in decline. I'm not saying that's what it is, but I'm just saying that someone's tone isn't indicative of anything. I totally fell for this trap and what's most amazing is that it's like the LSAT writers KNEW that someone would think this way. That's going to be hard to get around if this happens again..

Admin note: edited title
https://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-83-section-3-question-04/

LSATcantwin

That is the beauty of it though! You have found and disarmed their trap. You know that they are trying to bait you into choices that your mind is going to. YOU ARE AWARE! It will now get harder and harder for them to trick you with this stuff because you are conscious of it.

https://i.imgur.com/u1FcufY.gif?noredirect

BinghamtonDave

@"Logic Gainz" good work digging into the answer choices. One thing I will say is that there are basically two layers to cookie cutter flaws. There is the surface description to those flaws: containing the right combination of "buzzwords" (think here of answer choices that explicitly state the words: "sufficient" and "necessary") and then there are answer choices that describe why technically the argument is flawed. This is where our money is made on LR flaw questions: not only knowing that something is flawed for a particular cookie cutter reason, but knowing why that reason lends itself to a being flawed.

(A) essentially presupposes our knowledge of the flaw present, but goes a small step deeper: ok, we know it is some variation on the ad hominem, but why is that a flaw? Because it does what (A) says. Mr. Ping points this out in the video on this question.

A book recommendation: please see "Informal Logic: a Pragmatic Approach" by Douglas Walton. I cannot recommend this book highly enough.

David