Logical Reasoning - Help making up some examples

keepgoing.

Can anyone think of examples that would make the following answer choices correct
OR have come across LSAT arguments that have a method of reasoning matching the answer choices below?

it is compatible with accepting the argument’s conclusion and with denying it

it makes a value judgement that is incompatible with a principle outlined

It distorts the opponent's argument and then attacks the distorted argument

Thanks!

jmarmaduke96

Hi there!

Here are some examples of arguments I came up with that I think would be illustrations of the answer choices you gave.

For your first answer choice: In general, one should set aside some time each day to study for a test such as the LSAT. Doing a little bit of work every day will help the material stick in your head and help you avoid brain fatigue. This is much more effective than trying to cram a lot in a short period of time. However, it is also a good idea to try to start your law school application essays early if possible.

----- In this argument, the first sentence is the conclusion and the next two sentences are premises. The last sentence is just an add-on. You could agree with my conclusion and agree with the add-on about our application essays. You could also tell me im crazy and cramming is the best way to study. But you still agree with getting application essays started early because rolling admissions gives you a benefit for applying early. So, it is compatible with accepting and denying the conclusion.

For your second answer choice: "It should be taken as a given that one's family should be the most important thing thing to them. If you think that anything or anyone else is more important than your family, then you are a bad person. Yet, I do think that I should be considered to be a good person, even though my best-friend and I are very close and I consider them to be more important than some of my distant family members."

----- Here a conditional (or principle) is laid out. "If you think that anything or anyone else is more important than your family, then you are a bad person." The next sentence is a value judgement "I should be considered a good person," so I am making a prescriptive or normative claim. However, I think my friend is more important than someone in my family. I am making a value judgment that directly contradicts the principle.

For your third answer choice:
Person 1: I think that the presidential candidate from party A would be a very poor choice for the white house. He/she has a long track record of being selfish and dishonest. Not only that, he/she has been known for making terrible decisions in both foreign and domestic policy that are deleterious to the people in this country. Having such a leader is something that we should avoid if possible.

Person 2: Wow, I am surprised at the abrasiveness of your polemical argument. You should know that simply attacking all of the people who have a particular view is not a good way to bring people around to your side. Simply pretending like all of the supporters of party A are opposed to good policy is not going to persuade anyone that your viewpoint is correct. You really should have thought through your argument more carefully.

----- Here, person 1 makes a reasonable argument against voting for the candidate from Party A. On the other hand, person 2 distorts the argument and makes it seem like person 1 was making an ad hominem attack against the supporters of Party A's candidate. Person 2 then goes on to make a well reasoned attack against an ad hominem argument. So person 2 never interacted with the argument of person 1, he/she only attacked a straw man.

It is important to note here that if person 1 had actually made an ad hominem attack, then person 2's argument would be good. Person 2 correctly and accurately attacked an ad hominem argument, but that wasn't the argument that person 1 was making.

I hope this helps, let me know if I can clarify!

keepgoing.

@jmarmaduke96 said:
Hi there!

Here are some examples of arguments I came up with that I think would be illustrations of the answer choices you gave.

For your first answer choice: In general, one should set aside some time each day to study for a test such as the LSAT. Doing a little bit of work every day will help the material stick in your head and help you avoid brain fatigue. This is much more effective than trying to cram a lot in a short period of time. However, it is also a good idea to try to start your law school application essays early if possible.

----- In this argument, the first sentence is the conclusion and the next two sentences are premises. The last sentence is just an add-on. You could agree with my conclusion and agree with the add-on about our application essays. You could also tell me im crazy and cramming is the best way to study. But you still agree with getting application essays started early because rolling admissions gives you a benefit for applying early. So, it is compatible with accepting and denying the conclusion.

For your second answer choice: "It should be taken as a given that one's family should be the most important thing thing to them. If you think that anything or anyone else is more important than your family, then you are a bad person. Yet, I do think that I should be considered to be a good person, even though my best-friend and I are very close and I consider them to be more important than some of my distant family members."

----- Here a conditional (or principle) is laid out. "If you think that anything or anyone else is more important than your family, then you are a bad person." The next sentence is a value judgement "I should be considered a good person," so I am making a prescriptive or normative claim. However, I think my friend is more important than someone in my family. I am making a value judgment that directly contradicts the principle.

For your third answer choice:
Person 1: I think that the presidential candidate from party A would be a very poor choice for the white house. He/she has a long track record of being selfish and dishonest. Not only that, he/she has been known for making terrible decisions in both foreign and domestic policy that are deleterious to the people in this country. Having such a leader is something that we should avoid if possible.

Person 2: Wow, I am surprised at the abrasiveness of your polemical argument. You should know that simply attacking all of the people who have a particular view is not a good way to bring people around to your side. Simply pretending like all of the supporters of party A are opposed to good policy is not going to persuade anyone that your viewpoint is correct. You really should have thought through your argument more carefully.

----- Here, person 1 makes a reasonable argument against voting for the candidate from Party A. On the other hand, person 2 distorts the argument and makes it seem like person 1 was making an ad hominem attack against the supporters of Party A's candidate. Person 2 then goes on to make a well reasoned attack against an ad hominem argument. So person 2 never interacted with the argument of person 1, he/she only attacked a straw man.

It is important to note here that if person 1 had actually made an ad hominem attack, then person 2's argument would be good. Person 2 correctly and accurately attacked an ad hominem argument, but that wasn't the argument that person 1 was making.

I hope this helps, let me know if I can clarify!

This helped me so much! Thanks a ton.