Match each argumentative passage (left) to the abstract description of the specific ad hominem flaw it commits (right).
- Tech CEO Aris Thorne argues that society must adopt strict regulations on smartphone usage to combat declining attention spans. But Thorne himself admits to spending over six hours a day on his own social media platforms. Therefore, his argument for regulation is entirely without merit.Concludes that a position is false by pointing out that the advocate's behavior contradicts the tenets of that position.
- Dr. Vance's comprehensive study concludes that the proposed underground railway is structurally unfeasible and will collapse within a decade. However, we should disregard her findings. She is a major shareholder in the rival above-ground tram company, so she clearly stands to gain financially if the railway project fails.Treats evidence of a potential conflict of interest on the part of the arguer as sufficient to invalidate the arguer's empirical findings.
- Professor Lin has published a lengthy critique of my interpretation of the Bronze Age collapse, claiming my timeline ignores crucial geological data. But Lin is famously abrasive, has alienated half his department, and lacks basic professional courtesy. Thus, his critique of my timeline can be safely ignored.Fails to distinguish between a proponent's lack of professional decorum and the logical soundness of the proponent's analytical claims.
- The new curriculum standard emphasizing collaborative problem-solving should be rejected outright. It was championed by the Citizens for Progressive Education, a group whose founding members were recently indicted for embezzling public funds.Repudiates a proposal entirely on the basis that it is endorsed by an organization associated with disreputable activities.
Answer
The passages map directly to four distinct Ad Hominem sub-categories: the Tech CEO passage matches the behavioral contradiction description (Tu Quoque); the Dr. Vance passage matches the conflict of interest description (Circumstantial Bias); the Professor Lin passage matches the professional decorum description (Abusive); and the curriculum standard passage matches the disreputable organization description (Guilt by Association).
Each passage illustrates a distinct sub-category of the Ad Hominem fallacy. By precisely matching the narrative mechanism of the source attack (hypocrisy, financial bias, bad manners, or criminal association) to its corresponding abstract LSAT description, we accurately identify the specific logical flaw committed in each argument.
Step-by-Step Solution
Key Concept
Ad Hominem (Source Argument) Sub-categories