LSAT Question Explanation

PT 158, Section 2, Question 2

Flaw

Argument structure

Conclusion

We shouldn't prohibit the "bait-and-switch" sales tactic.

Evidence

Smith is the one who wants to ban the "bait-and-switch," but Smith himself owned a store that used the tactic.

Explanation

This is the classic ad-hominem flaw, attacking Smith rather than Smith's reasoning. It's very possible that Smith is right and we should ban the sales tactic, even though Smith's store used to use the tactic.

Answer choices

(A) ✓

This points out that the author rejects the ban simply because it was proposed by Smith. We have no idea if the ban is a good idea.

(B)

The author doesn't use a fact incompatible with a claim to prove the claim false. In fact the author doesn't try to prove anything false, just says that we shouldn't ban the "bait-and-switch." And the evidence isn't incompatible with that conclusion, the evidence just shows Smith to be a hypocrite.

(C)

This isn't the problem with this argument. Ultimately someone maybe should make the distinction between deceptive and legitimate tactics when deciding what to allow. However, the council president here is saying we shouldn't even consider Smith's proposal because of Smith's actions in the past, so even if a distinction were made the argument would still rest on flawed reasoning due to an ad hominem attack.

(D)

This indicates circular reasoning, which doesn't happen in the argument. The evidence isn't restated as the conclusion, they're different ideas.

(E)

This argument doesn't make an improper generalization. It just says we shouldn't listen to Smith in this case because of his past actions.

← Back to PT 158

← S2 Q1