Logical reasoning PrepTest 134 · Section 3 · Question 11

Incorrect. The argument doesn't even address whether these guidelines should be adopted, let alone sufficient/necessary conditions for doing so.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't reject the proposal! It only states that Sigerson's proposal of it is dishonest. The argument also doesn't address Sigerson's argument—that's actually one of the flaws.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't address the likelihood that the proposal is passed, or its popularity, so what other people think of it is out of scope.

Incorrect. The argument doesn't reject the proposal per se, and if anything it accuses Sigerson of being too familiar with the issues it raises since he's guilty of what it's trying to prevent.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Sigerson argues for a policy that he violates, so the proposal is dishonest.

Answer Anticipation:
An accusation of hypocrisy? This is one of the most common forms that an ad hominem attack takes on the LSAT. The stimulus here doesn't address whether Sigerson's ethical guidelines are good or bad—instead, it goes after the person making the argument. By ignoring the substance and going after the messenger, this argument commits a common error in reasoning.

However, that's not the only issue with this stimulus! There's also an issue with the timeline—the argument is using past conduct to argue that someone is being dishonest in arguing for tighter regulations of future conduct. It's possible to play by the current rules while still thinking that they should be different/better.

Either of these flaws could be highlighted in the correct answer, so let's stay flexible.

Answer Explanation:
This answer highlights the time shift that happens in the argument. The premises here are about what Sigerson has done, and the proposal would be about what should be done in the future. It's possible to honestly conform to current standards but still argue for better standards in the future.

Key Takeaway:
While not particularly common, there are many Errors in Reasoning questions with a very clear classic flaw present that doesn't then get offered as an answer. This is why it's important not to go into cruise control when looking for the answers—stay alert and focused so you can note an answer that may not match your anticipation. We assume most students went into the answers here expecting an ad hominem one—when it didn't show up, it's easy to get thrown if you're not staying flexible!