Logical Reasoning

PT153 · S2 · Q7 Kevin: My barber shop sells an herbal supplement

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

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 a chemical compound that causes people to lose hair.

Conclusion

The barber's herbal supplement does not help prevent baldness by inhibiting an enzyme that leads to hair loss.

Evidence

The barber is just saying that to make money.

Evaluate

Well, this doesn't seem like a very sophisticated counterargument. Sabine is just deeply cynical, assumes the barber is making up the purported efficacy of the herbal supplement, and is not even entertaining the possibility that the barber is saying something legitimate.

Goal

This feels like a version of the famous Ad Hominem flaw, since Sabine is dismissing someone's claims based on their ulterior motive (trying to sell bottles of herbal supplement).

We also could see correct answer wording getting at the fact that Sabine failed to address the supposed causal mechanism of the herbal supplement. LSAC would want Sabine to respond by addressing whether there's any legitimacy to the idea that inhibiting an enzyme could slow down hair loss.

7.

Sabine’s argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

  1. discounts scientifically plausible evidence merely

    Bad Premise Match

    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% picked this

  2. takes for granted that a

    Out of Scope: harmful

    Does the author assume/conclude that the herbal supplement will be harmful? Nope. So we can eliminate this.

    0% picked this

  3. rejects an explanation without proposing

    Not a Flaw

    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% picked this

  4. draws a conclusion about someone?s

    Bad Conclusion Match

    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% picked this

  5. Correct

    rejects a claim merely because

    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.

    92% picked this

Continue the review in LSAT Lab

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

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