Q11 - Sigerson argues that the city

[sumukh09]

I thought this was a textbook "attacking the source" argument. But none of the answer choices reflected that so I went with the next best thing which was B).

If the flaw that is committed is an ad hominem, will the answer choice reflect that explicitly or can answer choice B) mean the same thing? ie) that an inadequate (attacking the source = inadequate) argument has been given for it

[ohthatpatrick]

This IS a classic ad hominem argument. And the fact that the answer choices don't deliver on that flaw is a phenomenon that is popping up in modern LR sections (only 1 or 2 per test).

This question is a great example of why it's important to be flexible when taking LSAT, because this question appears to be recycling an age-old archetype and yet there is quite a bit of surprise when it comes to how the answer choices deal with it.

The way you were trying to make (B) fit the ad hominem flaw was admirable but ultimately unworkable.

If (B) said:
(B) provides an inadequate argument for rejecting a proposal

Then, yes, we could probably pick this, thinking that 'inadequate argument' was a placeholder for the 'attacking the person' logic flaw.

However, this answer is saying that our author's conclusion 'rejects a proposal' (which it does - 'Sigerson's proposal is dishonest'), and that our author's premise says 'Sigerson has not provided an adequate argument for enacting the proposal'.

But the actual premise says 'Sigerson has taken contributions from such companies throughout his career'.

Those two don't match at all.

WE test takers think this author's premise is inadequate grounds for his conclusion. But this answer is saying that our author's premise is "Sigerson did not provide adequate grounds for accepting this proposal".

Let me give you what answer choice (B) would have been really describing:
Sigerson argues that city politicans shouldn't be able to accept contributions from companies that do business with the city. But the city should not take this advice. After all, Sigerson has failed to provide statistics showing that accepting contributions leads to any misdoing."

Let's try to evaluate the other answers:

(A) is describing necessary/sufficient conflation, another typical LSAT recurring flaw. This flaw could be paraphrased as "the author botched conditional logic". Was there conditional logic anywhere in this argument? No. Eliminate.

(C) 'fails to address the possibility' = weaken. If other city politicians resisted Sigerson's proposal, would that weaken the argument? No. Since the author is shooting the proposal down, it wouldn't weaken the argument if other politicians were also rejecting the proposal.

(D) 'does X on the grounds that y' = match up with CONC and PREM. The CONC is a match, because the author's conclusion is rejecting a proposal. The PREM does not match. It actually contradicts what is said in (D). The PREM was that Sigerson IS (hypocritically) familiar with taking contributions from companies.

(E) 'overlooks the fact' = weaken. If the proposal only applies to the future conduct of city politicians, does that weaken the argument? Yes, in that our author's premise in fixated on Sigerson's past behavior, while the proposal in question is an ethical standard going forward. Maybe Sigerson has changed his mind about accepting contributions from companies. If so, even though Sigerson accepted contributions in the past, he might be making an honest proposal to prohibit such actions going forward.

I admit I don't like (E), but I can find definitive reasons to kill the other four answers and I can find some way to justify picking (E).

Hope this helps.

[547494985]

This IS a classic ad hominem argument. And the fact that the answer choices don't deliver on that flaw is a phenomenon that is popping up in modern LR sections (only 1 or 2 per test).

This question is a great example of why it's important to be flexible when taking LSAT, because this question appears to be recycling an age-old archetype and yet there is quite a bit of surprise when it comes to how the answer choices deal with it.

The way you were trying to make (B) fit the ad hominem flaw was admirable but ultimately unworkable.

If (B) said:
(B) provides an inadequate argument for rejecting a proposal

Then, yes, we could probably pick this, thinking that 'inadequate argument' was a placeholder for the 'attacking the person' logic flaw.

However, this answer is saying that our author's conclusion 'rejects a proposal' (which it does - 'Sigerson's proposal is dishonest'), and that our author's premise says 'Sigerson has not provided an adequate argument for enacting the proposal'.

But the actual premise says 'Sigerson has taken contributions from such companies throughout his career'.

Those two don't match at all.

WE test takers think this author's premise is inadequate grounds for his conclusion. But this answer is saying that our author's premise is "Sigerson did not provide adequate grounds for accepting this proposal".

Let me give you what answer choice (B) would have been really describing:
Sigerson argues that city politicans shouldn't be able to accept contributions from companies that do business with the city. But the city should not take this advice. After all, Sigerson has failed to provide statistics showing that accepting contributions leads to any misdoing."

Let's try to evaluate the other answers:

(A) is describing necessary/sufficient conflation, another typical LSAT recurring flaw. This flaw could be paraphrased as "the author botched conditional logic". Was there conditional logic anywhere in this argument? No. Eliminate.

(C) 'fails to address the possibility' = weaken. If other city politicians resisted Sigerson's proposal, would that weaken the argument? No. Since the author is shooting the proposal down, it wouldn't weaken the argument if other politicians were also rejecting the proposal.

(D) 'does X on the grounds that y' = match up with CONC and PREM. The CONC is a match, because the author's conclusion is rejecting a proposal. The PREM does not match. It actually contradicts what is said in (D). The PREM was that Sigerson IS (hypocritically) familiar with taking contributions from companies.

(E) 'overlooks the fact' = weaken. If the proposal only applies to the future conduct of city politicians, does that weaken the argument? Yes, in that our author's premise in fixated on Sigerson's past behavior, while the proposal in question is an ethical standard going forward. Maybe Sigerson has changed his mind about accepting contributions from companies. If so, even though Sigerson accepted contributions in the past, he might be making an honest proposal to prohibit such actions going forward.

I admit I don't like (E), but I can find definitive reasons to kill the other four answers and I can find some way to justify picking (E).

Hope this helps.

hi, thanks for the explanation, but I have a question whether this argument is ad hominem argument. the conclusion said the proposal is dishonest, not false, so, in my opinion, this argument is not attacking the people behind the argument instead of the argument. if the people said one thing but did otherwise, i think it would be legitimate to say his proposal is dishonest, which means it does not meant his true intent.

[christine.defenbaugh]

hi, thanks for the explanation, but I have a question whether this argument is ad hominem argument. the conclusion said the proposal is dishonest, not false, so, in my opinion, this argument is not attacking the people behind the argument instead of the argument. if the people said one thing but did otherwise, i think it would be legitimate to say his proposal is dishonest, which means it does not meant his true intent.

It's an interesting question!

It really depends on how we're viewing that word "dishonest". What's the conclusion really getting at here? By saying his proposal is 'dishonest', the author is essentially saying that Sigerson's argument is not a genuine argument. While we don't know, strictly speaking, whether the author would be for or against the proposal itself, he is undermining Sigerson's argument for such a proposal - and he's doing it by attacking Sigerson's character.

While you're right that a more standard 'ad hominem' would be to say that someone's proposal is FALSE by attacking the character, undermining their entire argument on the same grounds would probably still fit the bill.

Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately), we don't even get to go down that road, as it's not an option!

[jones.mchandler]

What if Sigerson is going to continue to be a city politician? Would answer choice E still hold up? If he does continue his career in politics, then would it still be a flaw to bring up his past behavior in evaluating his proposed policies?

I eliminated this because it doesn't seen supported by the argument. It seems way out of scope.

Hey I'm wondering if the flaw in this Q is comparable to the flaw in the second LR on PT 62 Q5? Basically the flaw is something like uses something concrete that happened in the past to suggest that something is not working/should be rejected?

[robinzhang7]

If (B) said:
(B) provides an inadequate argument for rejecting a proposal

Then, yes, we could probably pick this, thinking that 'inadequate argument' was a placeholder for the 'attacking the person' logic flaw.

However, this answer is saying that our author's conclusion 'rejects a proposal' (which it does - 'Sigerson's proposal is dishonest'), and that our author's premise says 'Sigerson has not provided an adequate argument for enacting the proposal'.

But the actual premise says 'Sigerson has taken contributions from such companies throughout his career'.

Those two don't match at all.

WE test takers think this author's premise is inadequate grounds for his conclusion. But this answer is saying that our author's premise is "Sigerson did not provide adequate grounds for accepting this proposal".

Let me give you what answer choice (B) would have been really describing:
Sigerson argues that city politicans shouldn't be able to accept contributions from companies that do business with the city. But the city should not take this advice. After all, Sigerson has failed to provide statistics showing that accepting contributions leads to any misdoing."

Let's try to evaluate the other answers:

Hey Patrick,

Could you go over again why (B) doesn't fit? I gathered from what you said that (B) is different from simply stating:
(distorted): "The argument rejects a proposal on the grounds that an inadequate argument is the reason for its rejection"

vs.

(B): "The argument rejects a proposal on the grounds that an inadequate argument has been given to support the proposal"

Is that the difference? that the answer choice we distorted refers to a rejection of the proposal based on the inadequate argument vs. (B)'s REAL answer choice referring to an inadequate argument in support of the proposal?

One other thing that seemed out of place to me was since the author's real premise is completely different from the "argument" referred to in (B) wouldn't that automatically make it "inadequate?" If a premise in the stimulus fails to provide evidence to support the propsal in the stimulus, that seems to constitute as "inadequate." This leads me to find a different reason why (B) is wrong. Could (B) be wrong because it says it "rejects" a proposal? Saying something is "dishonest" doesn't really qualify as a rejection. It could be dishonest, yet still accepted. What do you think?

Thanks!

[robinzhang7]

OR could it be that (B) is wrong because the purpose of the author's premise: "he has taken contributions...." is to support the conclusion, NOT the proposal. However, I still think that since the premise does nothing to support the proposal, that would constitute as "inadequate" which leads to the rejection.

Would be (B) be correct if it had said "rejects a proposal on the grounds that an inadequate arguement has been given for the rejection, NOT the proposal?"

Also, this (B) is the same as Question #14's correct answer choice: (A). Is the difference between 11 and 14 that in 14, an "inadequate argument" supports to the claim/proposal (Arnot's view) wheras in 11, the premise was completely irrelevant to Sigerson's proposal -- the premise was really only relevant in supporting the author's rejection of the proposal, NOT the proposal itself. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

[ohthatpatrick]

When Flaw answer choices give you two part ideas like
(B) rejects _____ on the grounds that ______

our job is simply to see whether the first half matches the CONC and the second half matches the PREM.

The first half looks good. Our author DOES reject a proposal in his CONC. But does our author’s premise say “Sigerson has provided an inadequate argument for his proposal” (or any equivalent synonym)?

It does not. So (B) is wrong.

If (B) had said
(B) [the argument] provides an inadequate reason for rejecting a proposal
it would be pretty accurate

But when you read “inadequate argument” in (B), don’t get it twisted: that’s not describing our author’s argument (which IS inadequate). (B) is saying that our author accused Sigerson of providing an inadequate argument. He does no accuse him of providing an inadequate argument. He accuses him of hypocritically forbidding something that HE himself has done in the past.

For (B) to match an argument, the author’s premise would need to sound like “This dude provided an inadequate argument”.

f.e.
Sigerson argues X. But clearly X is wrong. After all, Sigerson’s argument for X rests on a highly dubious assumption.

(like Q14)

in Q14, you’re saying “Idea X is false, since the argument made in favor of X was faulty.”
in Q11, you’re saying “Idea X is dishonest, because the dude arguing for it is a hypocrite.”

Only Q14 is rejecting an idea on the grounds that “an inadequate argument has been made in favor of it”.

Q11 is rejecting an idea on the grounds that the person offering the idea has previously behaved in a way that is incompatible with the idea.

And I agree that “reject” is a little harsh for calling an argument dishonest, but it’s not so flagrant that it would make me trash it immediately.

[erikwoodward10]

I had another concern about E. I understood that flaw answer choices couldn't introduce new information, that they had to describe a flaw committed in the argument itself. Isn't E introducing new information? I confidently eliminated it for this reason.

It seems like strange logic, and if this could be correct, theoretically couldn't an answer choice that says "overlooks the fact that S is always, 100% of the time, in all of his actions and thoughts, honest" be correct as well? Seems absurd to me.

[ohthatpatrick]

Flaw answer choices ARE allowed to bring up new ideas. The cluster of answer choice prefixes that usually do so are
"fails to consider"
"neglects the possibility"
"ignores the possibility"

It's actually very normal for a correct answer to bring up a new idea. It would be uncommon for the answer to literally contradict the conclusion the way your hypothetical did, but there are some that come pretty close to doing so.

You can say an argument is flawed in three main ways:
1. Point out an assumption the author made
2. Point out a new consideration that could weaken the argument
3. Describe an illegal move

Consider this argument:
Bob applied to Harvard. Thus Bob must want to go to a good school

Here are three possible correct answers:
1. takes for granted that Harvard is a good school
2. fails to consider that Bob's parents forced him to apply
3. infers, on the basis that someone applied to a school, that someone desires to attend that school.

There's a lot of variety to Flaw answer choices.
You can almost always just treat "fails to consider / ignores / neglects" answers as "if true, would this weaken?"