Logical Reasoning

PT141 · S2 · Q7 Party X has recently been accused

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

Party X has recently been accused by its opposition, Party Y, of accepting international campaign contributions, which is illegal.

Conclusion

The accusations that Party X illegally accepted international campaign contributes is ill founded.

Evidence

Party X is being accused by Party Y, who three years ago were involved in a scandal in which they violated campaign laws.

Evaluate

Whenever we do Parallel Flaw, we know to listen extra carefully for the Top 5 famous flaws (not the argument always commits one of those, but a high percentage of the time it does): Necessary vs. Sufficient, Part vs. Whole, Unproven vs. Proven False, Ad Hominem, and Correlation vs. Causation.

This seems to be an example of Ad Hominem, in which the author disqualifies the legitimacy of a claim because of its source, rather than its content. Specifically, the author argues .

This is an example of the latter.

According to this logic, an arsonist can't tell you who started the fire. Someone who has cheated on their taxes can't tell you whether someone else is committing tax fraud. Someone who has made a grammatical error in the past can't correct your grammar.

Goal

Look for an argument in which the author disqualifies a point of view because their past behavior includes some offense similar to the one they're alleging against someone.

7.

Which one of the following contains flawed reasoning most similar to the flawed reasoning in the argument above?

  1. The plaintiff accuses the defendant

    Bad Evidence Match

    At first, the similarity in topic and language (campaign laws / ill founded accusations) makes this seem like a trap answer. But all five answers have that trait, so that can't be our sole reason for disliking it. This argument is dismissing a point of view (the plaintiff's accusations are ill founded). Does the evidence say, "After all, this plaintiff did something similar in the past"? Nope. It says that the laws in question are unjust.

    1% picked this

  2. The plaintiff accuses the defendant

    Bad Conclusion Match

    This correctly matches the Evidence: the person making the accusations was guilty of similar accusations in the past. But it doesn't match the conclusion. The conclusion of the original argument wasn't that, "In accusing Party X, Party Y has shown itself to be hypocritical." That would be a more valid conclusion. Instead, it was "Party Y's accusations are ill-founded". Here we would need something like "The plaintiff's accusations are ill-founded". Citing someone's past behavior to support the idea that they're being hypocritical isn't flawed. That's how you prove hypocrisy: your actions don't match your rhetoric. Citing someone's past behavior to support the idea that their claim is wrong or should be ignored is what's flawed. Someone who is decrying instances of sexual abuse should be taken seriously, even if they themselves have been accused of sexual abuse in the past.

    27% picked this

  3. Correct

    The plaintiff accuses the defendant

    Why this is right

    This matches the original argument's flaw -- it tries to prove that certain accusations are ill founded by citing conflicting past behavior on the part of those making the accusations ("because the plaintiff recently engaged in similar actions, the plaintiff's accusations are ill founded").

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

    70% picked this

  4. The plaintiff accuses the defendant

    Weak Evidence Match

    This is the other variation on Ad Hominem, in which you try to invalidate someone's claim or argument by citing their biased interest. This argument is trying to invalidate the plaintiff's accusations based on the idea that the plaintiff stands to gain from making these allegations just before the election. We wanted an argument focused on conflicting past behavior not based on ulterior motives.

    2% picked this

  5. The plaintiff accuses the defendant

    Bad Evidence Match

    This argument is also trying to invalidate some accusations. Is it doing so by saying, "The accuser has some past behavior that is goes against what they're currently saying?" No. It's saying the accuser is attacking motives, just like (D), rather than engaging with the ideas themselves.

    1% 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