Kevin: My barber shop sells an herbal supplement

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

TopicsFlaw

Keep going in LSAT Lab

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

Free to start

Full official LSAT questions are available through LawHub. This page provides LSAT Lab's explanation, strategy, and review tools without republishing the full official question.

Stimulus

Kevin: My barber shop sells an herbal supplement that, according to my barber, helps prevent baldness because it contains an enzyme that blocks the formation of people to lose hair.

Sabine: Thatʼs simply not true. The fact is, your barber makes money by convincing that product.

What this question is testing

Flaw

Your task

Describe the reasoning error the argument actually commits.

Common trap

Answers that name a real logical flaw the argument doesn't actually make.

Winning move

Articulate the gap in the reasoning yourself, then match it to the choice that describes that gap.

Reading along? Open the full official question in LawHub — we show a fragment here and keep the reasoning in our own words.

The question

Sabineʼs argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds

Answer choices

Bad Premise Match1% picked this
discounts scientifically plausible evidence merely because the person offering it is
We don't know enough about enzymes and hair loss to know if the barber's claim is scientifically plausible, but it at least sounded scientific. We should examine the biochemistry, if we're trying to shoot down the barber's claim. So Sabine did unfairly discount the scientific explanation. But this answer says the premise was, "It simply does not do that. This barber is not a scientist", when the argument was "It simply does not do that. This barber just wants to make money".
1%
Out of Scope: harmful0% picked this
takes for granted that a product will be harmful if it is sold on the basis
Does the author assume/conclude that the herbal supplement will be harmful? Nope. So we can eliminate this.
0%
Not a Flaw1% picked this
rejects an explanation without proposing an
It's not a flaw to reject an explanation without proposing an alternative explanation. If you're saying that my client killed Mr. X, my job as the defense attorney is to undermine that explanation. It's not my job to tell you who did kill Mr. X. Our problem is that Sabine "rejects an explanation without addressing the reasoning offered for that explanation".
1%
Bad Conclusion Match6% picked this
draws a conclusion about someone?s motives for making a particular claim without providing evidence that any such
Does the author conclude something about someone's motives? Nope. The conclusion is about the efficacy of the herbal supplement. The premise is about the motives of the barber. Also, the second half of this answer is trying to make an objection like, "But we don't even know if a claim was made!" We definitely know a claim was made.
6%
Correct91% picked this
rejects a claim merely because the person making the claim stands to benefit
Why this is right
Does the author reject a claim in his conclusion? Yes, "That is simply not the case." Is the author's sole premise that the person making the claim stands to benefit? Yes, "your barber makes money convincing people of that" This is the famous Ad Hominem flaw.
Skill tested: Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.
91%

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