Examkin

Question

Difficulty: HardAd Hominem (Source Argument)

Journalist: The author of the recent controversial book on corporate tax evasion claims that multinational tech companies are illegally hiding profits in offshore accounts, basing this conclusion on a cache of leaked financial documents. However, this author has a well-documented history of writing sensationalized exposés designed specifically to maximize personal wealth and notoriety, often playing loose with journalistic standards. Thus, the author's claim that these tech companies are engaged in illegal tax evasion is clearly false.

The journalist's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it...

  1. A
    attempts to undermine the author's position by disputing the validity of the leaked financial documents themselves.
  2. B
    infers that because sensationalized reporting and false claims frequently occur together, the former inevitably produces the latter.
  3. treats an attack on the character and motivations of a claimant as constituting a valid refutation of the claimant's evidence-based conclusion.Answer
  4. D
    confuses a subsidiary conclusion regarding the author's journalistic integrity with the primary conclusion regarding corporate tax evasion.
  5. E
    relies on shifting the meaning of the term "standards" from an ethical requirement to a measure of financial accuracy.

Answer

The correct answer states that the argument treats an attack on the author's character and motivations as a valid refutation of their evidence-based conclusion.
The journalist's argument concludes that the author's claim must be false solely because the author has questionable motives (maximizing personal wealth) and a history of poor journalistic standards. This is a classic Ad Hominem flaw: it attacks the source of the argument rather than addressing the argument's underlying objective evidence (the leaked financial documents).

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the main conclusion of the journalist's argument.
The journalist concludes that the author's claim (that tech companies are engaged in illegal tax evasion) is clearly false.
Locating the main conclusion is essential for evaluating the structure and potential vulnerabilities of the reasoning.
2
Identify the premises used to support this conclusion.
The premises focus entirely on the author's history of writing sensationalized exposés to maximize personal wealth and their tendency to play loose with journalistic standards.
Understanding the evidence provided reveals how the arguer attempts to bridge the gap between their premises and their conclusion.
3
Evaluate the logical relationship between the premises and the conclusion to pinpoint the core flaw.
The journalist uses the author's questionable character and financial motives to completely dismiss the author's claim, ignoring the fact that the author's claim is allegedly supported by objective evidence (leaked financial documents).
Recognizing that attacking the source does not logically invalidate a source's argument—especially one based on independent evidence—is the key to identifying a Source Argument (Ad Hominem) flaw.
4
Match the identified flaw with the abstract descriptions in the answer choices.
The choice describing the treatment of a character and motivation attack as a valid refutation perfectly matches the structural flaw occurring in the journalist's reasoning.
This step translates the specific scenario of the stimulus into the generalized logical vocabulary characteristic of the LSAT.

Key Concept

Ad Hominem (Source Argument)
Rate this question

Topics

Ad Hominem (Source Argument)

More questions from this topic