Logical reasoning PrepTest 109 · Section 1 · Question 21

Incorrect. This answer doesn't speak to whether such attacks should be avoided, so it can't justify the reasoning.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't speak to whether such attacks should be avoided. Maybe if it said that such attacks don't impress those watching a debate it would be correct, but it instead says that they shouldn't impress those watching the debate, leaving open the possibility that they do.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Strengthen (Principle)

Stimulus Summary:
Personal attacks ignore arguments and question the person's right to be in a debate, so they should be avoided.

Answer Anticipation:
Strengthen (Principle) questions generally present a judgment in the conclusion based on a situation brought up in the premises. Here, that judgment takes the form of a recommendation—a certain type of statement "should" be avoided in a debate (a personal attack).

What reason is given for that? Well it's twofold—attacks on the person don't address the opponent's argument; and they cast doubt on the opponent's moral right to be in the debate. Either (or both) of these reasons could be established in a principle to be sufficient to justify avoiding them so let's find an answer that establishes that.

Answer Explanation:
The stimulus establishes that personal attacks don't confront the opponent's argument. If they fail to confront even a single argument then they by definition don't confront every argument. This answer then justifies the conclusion that attacking an opponent is a technique that should be avoided justifying the conclusion. Is this answer overkill? Is it such overkill that almost no argument could possibly be justified and almost all arguments should be avoided? Yep. But that just guarantees that it allows the conclusion here to be reached. Remember in this question type we're trying to find an answer that helps us get to the conclusion—overkill isn't bad since it still guarantees the conclusion can be drawn.

Key Takeaway:
Strengthen (Principle) questions can have answers that "overshoot" the conclusion—that provide more support than needed to justify it. The same is true for Strengthen and Strengthen with Sufficient Premise questions. The only variety of Strengthen question where overkill in an answer makes it incorrect in fact is Strengthen with Necessary Premise questions—overkill isn't necessary so it's wrong there.

Incorrect. This answer conflates the two reasons provided for not attacking the opponent's character and also messes up the details when it discusses further debates, whereas the stimulus discusses the moral right to be in the current debate.

Incorrect. This answer would justify attacking an opponent's character in certain instances, but there's no similar carve—out in the argument's conclusion, which is categorically against personal attacks.