Bunuel
Politician: Most of those at the meeting were not persuaded by Kuyler’s argument, nor should they have been, for Kuyler’s argument implied that it would be improper to enter into a contract with the government; and yet—as many people know— Kuyler’s company has had numerous lucrative contracts with the government.
Which one of the following describes a flaw in the politician’s argument?
(A) It concludes that an argument is defective merely on the grounds that the argument has failed to persuade anyone of the truth of its conclusion.
(B) It relies on testimony that is likely to be biased.
(C) It rejects an argument merely on the grounds that the arguer has not behaved in a way that is consistent with the argument.
(D) It rejects a position merely on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been given for it.
(E) It rejects an argument on the basis of an appeal to popular opinion.
EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT
I can’t tell you how many times this flaw has been tested. It’s a lot. The flaw is attacking
a proponent of a position instead of
the position itself. Someone can be a hypocrite and still have an argument that makes sense. It is never correct, in LSAT logic, to say, “We shouldn’t listen to them because they don’t follow their own advice,” or more broadly, “We shouldn’t listen to them because they, personally, are [anything].” The speaker is not relevant, only the speaker’s words.
A) This simply isn’t what we’re looking for. And anyway, even though the given passage
did use the grounds that the argument had failed to persuade anyone, that was only part of the reason the passage offered for rejecting the position. So it’s not fair to use the word “merely” here.
B) No, the argument doesn’t do this. What testimony? Why would it be biased?
C) Yes, exactly.
D) No, the argument doesn’t do this either.
E) No, even if the argument does do this (by appealing to the opinions of those at the meeting), C is an even worse flaw.
Our answer is C.