Logical reasoning PrepTest 114 · Section 4 · Question 8

Incorrect. The Politician doesn't reveal any personal prejudice against a certain type of lifestyle. Her issue is with the hypocrisy, not the lifestyle itself!

Incorrect. The Politician doesn't weigh in on the actual zoning laws, just the opponent's argument, and so this answer is out of scope.

Incorrect. The Politician's lifestyle is as out of scope to the underlying argument as the opponent's is!

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
P: My opponent is a hypocrite, so we can ignore his argument.

Answer Anticipation:
A common variation of the Attacking the Person flaw is dismissing someone's argument because they're a hypocrite. The Politician here says that we shouldn't take her opponent's argument seriously because his "lifestyle contradicts his own argument"—i.e., he's a hypocrite. That ignores the argument and attacks the person making it (for hypocrisy), so let's find an answer stating that.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the Attacking the Person flaw. The opponent's lifestyle—and any hypocrisy it may highlight—is irrelevant to the merits of the argument he's making.

Key Takeaway:
Accusations of hypocrisy (actions contradicting arguments) are irrelevant to the argument being made. Any attack on the person making an argument instead of the argument itself is an Attacking the Person flaw.

Incorrect. Even if the politician used to live somewhere else, he made the decision to move, so this answer is out of scope.