Logical reasoning PrepTest 141 · Section 2 · Question 7

Incorrect. This answer doesn't accuse the plaintiff of similarly violating campaign laws. Instead, it questions whether those laws themselves are moral/just.

Incorrect. This answer is unbelievably tempting. However, there's a key difference between the stimulus and this answer. In the stimulus, the conclusion is that the accusations are "ill-founded" because of the hypocrisy. Here, the conclusion is that the plaintiff is hypocritical. Since this answer's conclusion is about the plaintiff instead of the argument, it doesn't commit an ad hominem flaw—an ad hominem flaw requires dismissing an argument because of the person making it.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Flawed Parallel Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Party Y accused Party X of illegally accepting international contributions. However, Pary Y violated campaign laws a few years ago, so their accusations are baseless.

Answer Anticipation:
Does the author of the argument address the accusation against Party X at all? Nope! Instead, it accuses Party Y of previously doing what it's accusing Party X of. When an argument relies on attacks towards the person or group making an argument instead of the argument itself, that's an ad hominem attack. This particular version of the flaw involves accusation of hypocrisy—a group has been guilty of what they accuse another of, and that's treated as being enough to dismiss the accusation.

The correct answer should similarly launch an ad hominem attack to dismiss an argument—and if that's true of more than one answer, the correct answer will involve some type of hypocrisy.

Answer Explanation:
This answer dismisses accusations ("accusations are ill founded") based on the person making them (the plaintiff) "recently [having] engaged in actions that were similar" to the ones it's attacking the defendant for taking. Since this argument draws a conclusion about an argument based on the actions of those making it instead of the content of the argument itself, and those actions are hypocritical, this is the correct answer.

Key Takeaway:
An ad hominem flaw on the LSAT requires that an argument be dismissed or undermined because of the person making it. Be careful, though, as the LSAT has taken to trying to trap you into selecting answers that have a personal attack that isn't used to undermine an argument. We saw that in answer choice (B), where there was a personal attack against the plaintiff, but that attack wasn't used to reach a conclusion that the argument made by the plaintiff was bad.

Additionally, there are different subtypes in a lot of the flaws that are common on the LSAT. Just think of conditional flaws—we learn about illegal reversals and negations. Same thing goes for ad hominem flaws, where three common subtypes are questionable motives; hypocritical behavior; and a straight up insult.

Incorrect. While this answer choice does go after the plaintiff making the accusations rather than the content of those accusations, this answer questions the plaintiff's motives, it doesn't accuse the plaintiff of hypocritical behavior. That's a different type of ad hominem attack, so this answer is incorrect.

Incorrect. This answer doesn't commit an ad hominem flaw—it points one out in someone else's argument. In pointing out a flaw in an argument, this answer does address the opposing point's argument.