LSAT Question Explanation
PT 108, Section 2, Question 18
Identify the FlawArgument structure
One person walking across the grass hurts it.
If everyone walked across the grass, the grass would die.
Explanation
Sid's argument is terrible. Just because everyone walking across the grass would hurt it doesn't mean that one person walking across the grass would hurt it.
Answer choices
Sid doesn't try to disprove something about the action of walking across the grass, the whole argument is about the consequences of people walking across the grass.
Sid makes this error. Micki was just saying that one person walking across the grass wouldn't hurt it. Sid then tries to say Micki is wrong because if everyone believed that, the grass would get hurt. That is way outside the scope of Micki's argument.
There's no indication that Sid doesn't believe what he's saying. He also doesn't say that everyone believes they can walk across the grass, just that if they did it would become a problem.
This is irrelevant. The argument is about if the grass will get hurt, not if it's justifiable to hurt it.
Sid never attacks Micki personally. This answer choice indicates an ad hominem flaw, which doesn't occur in this stimulus.