PT34.S2.Q01 - bad faith to researchers

k the land surveryor

http://7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-34-section-2-question-01/

I’ve been struggling with questions like this. It’s clear that the author is using an attack on the character of the writer, but that part where (A) says “as evidence that this person is not competent on matters of scientific substance” is not descriptively accurate. The author’s argument doesn't mention R’s competence on matters of scientific substance, it only tries to say the _book_ doesn't merit professional attention.

anne2hoang

This is a classic Ad Hominem fallacy question. An Ad Hominem fallacy is one that attacks a person’s character or person traits instead of the argument itself.

The correct answer choice does not say that the attack “proves” R’s incompetence, but it says that it provides “evidence” of R’s incompetence. I can see how the strong wording can throw you off. The strategy for this question is to eliminate all the wrong answer choices (which are wildly wrong). Then move on to the next question. Don’t obsess with the wording, especially when this question is the very first one!

In case you wanted more practice, here are other Ad Hominem questions:

PrepTest 19 (June 1996), S2, Q14
PrepTest 26 (June 1998), S4, Q4
PrepTest 32 (October 2000), S4, Q6
PrepTest 34 (June 2001), S2, Q1
PrepTest 38 (October 2002), S1, Q8
PrepTest 38 (October 2002), S4, Q8
PrepTest (June 2007), S2, Q17