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 (So)

There is no reason not to try my herb juice.

Evidence

Customers report improved physical coordination.

A few doctors say the herbs are potentially harmful, but doctors are always trying to maintain a monopoly over medical therapies.

Evaluate

If we're the other lawyer and we're arguing, there IS some reason not to try this herb juice what would we say?

We could start with,

And the author will say,

We need a response. We could say,

If we know our Famous Flaws, then we'll hopefully recognize this as a classic Ad Hominem. That's when the author dismisses someone's view because they (1) have an ulterior motive / vested interest, or (2) have conflicting past behavior / hypocrisy.

In this case, the author is trying to immediately disqualify what these doctors are saying just because doctors do have a financial interest in herbal treatments being bad ideas.

Goal

Look for an answer addressing the Ad Hominem move where the author fails to seriously address the concerns of the doctors and wipes them away by pointing out their self-interest.

Or, there might be an answer saying, (e.g. its awful taste, the farts it gives you, etc.)

14.

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

  1. attempts to force acceptance of

    Bad Description

    This describes a different famous flaw, an illicit Appeal to Emotion/Fear. The other didn't try to get us to believe her conclusion through pity or intimidation.

    2% picked this

  2. bases a conclusion on claims

    Self-Contradiction

    This describes another of the 10 famous flaws, self-contradiction. The author doesn't have any premises (customers benefit, doctors are biased) that contradict each other.

    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 another of the 10 famous flaws, circular reasoning, where the premise restates or assumes the conclusion. Neither premise restates or needs to assume that "there's no reason not to try the herb juice". The premises are - many customers say coordination improved - doctors want a monopoly over medical therapies

    2% picked this

  5. mistakes the observation that one

    Causal Flaw

    Famous Flaw Bait: Causal Flaw Bad Conclusion Match Hey, all five answers came from the 10 famous flaws. This describes a variation of the Causal flaw, where an author would overconfidently conclude that X caused Y, given that X happened right before Y happened. Customers drank juice and then found that their physical coordination improved after. If the author had concluded, "Clearly, the juice caused their physical coordination to improve", then it would match this answer. But the author's conclusion doesn't promise any benefits. It simply says there's no reason to avoid the juice.

    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