Logical reasoning PrepTest 102 · Section 4 · Question 4

Incorrect. Oh, so tempting! This answer describes an Attacking the Person flaw. However, it states that the Columnist attacks the "originators" of the legislation, whereas in the stimulus, the attack is on groups that are supporting the legislation.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Legislation - A lot of good stuff for workers
Supporters - Have been violent; have been accused of evading taxes
Conclusion - We should defeat the legislation

Answer Anticipation:
This Columnist recommends defeating a piece of legislation. Does she do so by analyzing the impact of it, or by establishing a principle by which we could determine whether we should adopt or defeat a piece of legislation?

Nope.

Instead, she brings up negative characteristics of the individuals who are supporting the legislation. They have resorted to violence, and many are being indicted for tax evasion. That doesn't address their argument in favor of the legislation, instead calling their character into question, so this is a classic Attacking the Person flaw.

Answer Explanation:
Unlike (A), this answer describes an Attacking the Person flaw and correctly identifies the group being attacked—the supporters. This answer is thus correct.

Key Takeaway:
For a question #4, this question had quite a few strong trap answers! For an Attacking the Person flaw, make sure that you have the right "variety" of the flaw (attacking the character; accusing someone of hypocrisy; accusing someone of inconsistency).

Incorrect. The Columnist doesn't identify anyone who would be adversely affected by the legislation, so this answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. There's no discussion of how widespread the support for the legislation is, and it even identifies some groups outside of the legislative body that support it, so this answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. The argument focuses on the character of the supporters, not the consistency of their actions. (Bringing up inconsistent actions/arguments would be one type of Attacking the Person flaw, but it's not the one present here.)