Logical reasoning PrepTest 129 · Section 3 · Question 2

Incorrect. While the Politician does note that most of those at the meeting weren't persuaded by Kuyler's argument, that wasn't the reason given to dismiss his argument—rather, his hypocritical actions are the reason. Additionally, the Politician only states that most of those at the meeting weren't convinced, not that it failed to persuade "anyone" as this answer states.

Incorrect. This answer can feel like it's in the right area, but whose testimony does it rely on? Kuyler's argument, if considered testimony, isn't likely to be biased against himself (which it would have to be for the argument to rely on it in reaching its conclusion); and the Politician isn't shown to have any inherent bias against Kuyler.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Kuyler's company does the very thing he implied was improper at yesterday's meeting, so people shouldn't have been persuaded by his argument.

Answer Anticipation:
Throwing out an argument because of accusations of hypocrisy? That's a classic ad hominem attack. Kuyler very well could be right that entering into a contract with the government is improper . . . all while engaging in improper conduct.

Answer Explanation:
This answer choice highlights the ad hominem attack over hypocrisy committed by the Politician—Kuyler decries the improper nature of government contracts while having numerous ones himself.

Key Takeaway:
Ad hominem attacks focus on the person making an argument instead of the argument itself. One particular version of this flaw is throwing someone's argument out because of hypocritical actions on their part—they act in a way that doesn't align with their argument. But hypocrites can be right!

Incorrect. This answer describes an absence of evidence flaw, but the Politician's contention isn't that Kuyler's argument didn't have a solid basis for it. In fact, the Politician doesn't highlight the reasoning of Kuyler's argument at all, instead focusing on the person making the argument.

Incorrect. If the argument is appealing to an opinion at all, it's of the majority of people who weren't convinced of Kuyler's argument. However, the Politician doesn't use that information to support the conclusion, but rather relies on the accusation of hypocrisy.