Logical Reasoning

PT109 · S1 · Q21 Attacks on an opponent’s character

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

Attacks on an opponent’s character should be avoided in political debates.

Conclusion (should)

Attacks on an opponent's character should be avoided in political debates.

Evidence

Attacks on an opponent's character don't confront the argument, and they cast doub on the opponent's moral right to be in the debate at all.

Evaluate

For Strengthen+Principle questions, we have a very predictable pre-phrasing goal of just saying "IF Premise, THEN Conclusion".

If there are multiple premise ideas, as there are here, any one of them can be used as a launching pad that gets us to the landing zone of the Conclusion.

Goal

Let's look for either of these,

if something does not then should be not confront the → avoided in opponent's argument political debates

if something casts doubt then should be on opponent's moral → avoided in right to be in debate political debates

21.

Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning above?

  1. Attacks on an opponent’s character

    Unrelated to Goal

    Since this isn't a rule that has language like "should be avoided in political debates", it's functionally useless to us. This is a principle about "what does / doesn't a certain technique result from". We want a principle about "should / shouldn't a certain technique be used".

    21% picked this

  2. Attacks on an opponent’s character

    Unrelated to Goal

    Since this isn't a rule that has language like "should be avoided in political debates", it's functionally useless to us. This is a principle about "what should / shouldn't impress people watching a debate". We want a principle about "what things should / shouldn't be avoided by the debaters".

    2% picked this

  3. Correct

    Debating techniques that do not

    Why this is right

    This has our Conclusion language, so it's instantly the most (or really only) tempting answer. The rule says: if a debating technique then that debating does not confront → technique should every argument be avoided If we can apply this to "attacks on an opponent's character", then it gives us the conclusion perfectly! Do we know whether "attacks on an opponent's character" do not confront every argument? We do. We know that attacks on an opponent's character "do not confront the opponent's argument". Therefore, they do not confront every argument. Thus, according to this rule, attacks on an opponent's character should be avoided.

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

    54% picked this

  4. Attacking the character of one’s

    Unrelated to Goal

    Since this isn't a rule that has language like "should be avoided in political debates", it's functionally useless to us. This is a principle about "what does / doesn't preserve one's moral right to enter future debates". We want a principle about "should / shouldn't a certain technique be avoided in a debate".

    9% picked this

  5. Questions of character should be

    Bad Conclusion Match Negated Logic

    This is worth considering, since "whether questions of character should / shouldn't be raised" is pretty nearby to "whether attacks on character should / shouldn't be avoided". This rule looks like this: if questions of character then questions are relevant to the → of character opponent's argument should be raised Once we see it diagrammed, it becomes clear that the right side is nowhere near matching the Conclusion of the argument. This answer was probably designed to tempt people into hearing it in Illegal Opposite form: if questions of character then questions of are not relevant to the → character should opponent's argument not be raised That would be closer to an answer we'd consider, but, of course, this answer does not actually say that.

    13% 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