Logical Reasoning

PT102 · S3 · Q14 Herbalist: Many of my customers

A free, expert breakdown of this official LSAT Logical Reasoning question.

  • Save & drill this skill — build targeted practice sets from questions like this one

  • Video walkthroughs — watch every question solved step by step

  • 81 official LSATs — as questions, timed sections & full-length tests

Start practicing free

Herbalist: Many of my customers find that their physical coordination improves after drinking juice containing certain herbs.

Conclusion

There is no reason not to try the herbalist's herb juice.

Evidence

Customers report improved physical coordination. A few doctors say the herbs are potentially harmful, but the herbalist dismisses this on the grounds that

Evaluate

The flaw: instead of engaging with the doctors' actual claim about potential harm, the herbalist attacks the doctors themselves — accusing them of self-interested motives. That's a classic ad hominem move. The doctors' alleged motive doesn't establish whether their claim about the herbs is true or false.

Goal

Find the answer that names this move: rejecting a claim by attacking the proponents' motives rather than addressing the claim itself.

14.

The reasoning in the herbalist’s argument is flawed because the argument

  1. attempts to force acceptance of

    Bad Description

    This describes appeals to fear, not what the herbalist does. The herbalist is trying to dismiss a worry (about harm), not induce fear. Wrong flaw description.

    2% picked this

  2. bases a conclusion on claims

    Self-Contradiction

    This describes basing a conclusion on inconsistent premises. The herbalist's premises (customers benefit, doctors are biased) aren't inconsistent with each other. Wrong flaw description.

    4% picked this

  3. Correct

    rejects a claim by attacking

    Why this is right

    This nails the flaw — a textbook ad hominem. The herbalist rejects the doctors' claim ("the herbs are potentially harmful") not by addressing whether the herbs are actually harmful, but by attacking the doctors themselves (accusing them of monopoly-protecting motives). Whether or not doctors have such motives, that doesn't bear on whether the herbs are harmful.

    Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

    89% picked this

  4. relies on evidence presented in

    Circular Reasoning

    This describes circular reasoning — assuming the conclusion in the premises. The herbalist's premises don't presuppose that the herb juice is safe; they just dismiss the doctors. Wrong flaw description.

    2% picked this

  5. mistakes the observation that one

    Causal Flaw

    This describes post hoc reasoning ("after this, therefore because of this"). While the customers' benefit-after-drinking premise could be vulnerable to that flaw, the actual move the question targets is the herbalist's dismissal of the doctors. The argument's primary flaw — and the move the question asks about — is the ad hominem, not the post hoc.

    2% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

Save this question, watch the video walkthrough, and drill similar questions in your LSAT Lab account.

Save and practice this skill
LSAT Lab

Turn this review into a targeted study plan.

Save this question, drill more like it, watch the video walkthrough, and track your progress in your LSAT Lab account.

Start practicing free