voodoochild wrote:
Politician: My opponent says our zoning laws too strongly promote suburban single-family dwellings and should be changed to encourage other forms of housing like apartment buildings. Yet he lives in a house in the country. His lifestyle contradicts his own argument, which should therefore not be taken seriously.
The politician’s reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the ground that
(A) Its characterization of the opponent’s lifestyle reveals the politician’s own prejudice against constructing apartment buildings.
(B) It neglects the fact that apartment buildings can be built in the suburbs just as easily as in the center of the city.
(C) It fails to mention the politician’s own living situation
(D) Its discussion of the opponent’s lifestyle is irrelevant to the merits of the opponent’s argument.
(E) It ignores the possibility that the opponent may have previously lived in an apartment building.
Conclusion - Opponents' lifestyle shouldn't be taken seriously.
Premise - His lifestyle contradicts his own argument
Why is E) incorrect? In describing the relationship between the lifestyle and the argument, the politician says that his opponent lives in a house. However, the fact that the opponent has ALSO lived in an apartment building in the past would weaken the argument. I agree that D) is better than E). But, E) could be considered an example in which the author "forgot" to consider additional premise, which, if true, would weaken the argument.
I am responding to a p.m. from
voodoochildFirst of all, I agree with
ShalabhAr's sentiment: "
The question definitely does not seem to be of the GMAT standard." In posting these questions, it would be quite helpful if you identified the source.
In this argument, the politician argues against his opponent. Apparently the opponent wants to change the zoning laws, which he feels favor suburban single-family dwellings over apartment buildings. It's unclear why the politician opposes this --- does he think the zoning laws are fair as is, or does he oppose the construction of apartment buildings in his district? That's not clear.
Then, the argument takes an
ad hominem turn. That is a classic fallacy, and I guarantee: if any
ad hominem arguments appear on the real GMAT CR, it will be a "weaken" question and the
ad hominem part will be the fallacy. In this question (D) hits the nail on the head -- the problem is an
ad hominem argument.
(E) is problematic for a few reasons.
1) it's purely speculative
2) it also falls into the same
ad hominem fallacy of the argument itself!!!
Where the opponent lives now, has lived, could live, etc. does not fundamentally reflect anything about his argument about the relative fairness or unfairness of zoning laws. Anything about the opponent's living situation, his taste in food, his relationship with wife and family, and anything else about his personal predilections is strictly logically irrelevant to the content and validity of his argument. That, in a nutshell, is why an
ad hominem attack is a logical fallacy. (E), rather than address this central fallacy, falls into the same fallacy.
voodoochild wrote:
Here's a similar argument:
Premise - Bumblebee bats fly in the night.
Conclusion - All bats are nocturnal.
Weakener - Fruit bats are not active in night.
We could use the above analogous situation to say that the opponent is not "contradicting" his own argument. Essentially, the politician argument *fails* to consider another premise, which, if true, would kill the argument?
Here, I echo
thevenus's sentiment: "
The undermentioned example has no relation in context to the CR question above." What you are presenting here is a weak syllogism, but it is totally lacking an
ad hominem component, which is the crux of the fallacy in the original argument. Furthermore, by making the claim that the new premise "kills" the argument, you yourself are falling into the
ad hominem fallacy instead of identifying it.
In philosophy, in science, in law, and on the GMAT CR, the
ad hominem approach is recognized as a logical fallacy. What's hard is that, in politics, especially American politics, the
ad hominem approach is simply par for the course.
Ad hominem attacks are trumpeted by both sides in any campaign, so much so that, if one is not vigilant, one might be tempted to think the
ad hominem approach is a legitimate form of argument. It's not, and on the GMAT CR, you need to be clear about that.
Does all this make sense?
Mike
_________________
Mike McGarry
Magoosh Test PrepEducation is not the filling of a pail, but the lighting of a fire. — William Butler Yeats (1865 – 1939)