PrepTest 153

Incorrect. Nope, this isn't the right fallacy. This would look more like "your barber doesn't have the requisite background in the sciences to make such a claim," which would actually be a more valid argument than the one Sabine put forth.

Incorrect. Points for humor value, but Sabine never actually claimed this product was harmful. She claimed it wasn't beneficial in the way the barber says it is.

Incorrect. One is not required, in the context of logical debate, to propose an alternative when rejecting an opponent's explanation of a phenomenon. Sabine also didn't do this, but even if she did? Not a fallacy.

Incorrect. She's definitely casting doubt on the barber's motives, but the issue with that isn't about whether or not the claim was made. Kevin said the claim was made, and Sabine seems to believe him.

Correct. Argument or Facts:
Argument

Valid or Flawed:
Flawed

Question Type:
Errors in Reasoning

Stimulus Summary:
Here we have an argument between two very silly people. Kevin describes an herbal supplement for sale at his barbershop,which his barber claims prevents baldness by blocking the formation of a chemical compound that causes people to lose hair. Sabine pooh-poohs it because the barber profits by selling it. We're looking for a flaw in Sabine's argument.

Strategy Overview:
Read both people's statements, but remember we're looking for Sabine's error, so any fallacies in Kevin's are irrelevant and not worth your time. Look for a prevalent logical fallacy in how Sabine countered Kevin's argument.

Answer Anticipation:
Is it possible for someone to make money by selling a product that works? Of course. So, it can't be a valid argument that the supplement is not effective because the barber profits by selling it. Sabine may be factually right that the supplement doesn't work, but her argument is logically invalid because it's an Ad Hominem.

Answer Explanation:
Finally! This is an accurate description of an Ad Hominem fallacy. Just because the barber stands to profit doesn't mean the product is bunk. (Nor does it mean that it works. The barber's net worth doesn't actually affect the effectiveness of the product at all.)

Key Takeaway:
Ad Hominems are among the most common fallacies on the LSAT, so practice reminding yourself "you can be a jerk and be correct, you can be a hypocrite and be correct, you can be biased and be correct." Simply noting that the proponent of an idea is unpalatable does not constitute a logical counter to the idea itself.