Zeida: Dr. Ladlow, a research psychologist, has convincingly demonstrated that his theory about the determinants of r...

ShannonOh22 August 8, 2019

"Attacking character" question

Here is a question with "attacks character" as one of the answer choices...Anson does seem to be attacking Dr. Ladlow's character ("he is not a responsible psychologist", but this is justified as a mere statement of fact later in the passage when he says "responsible psychologists always accept the possibility that new evidence..." I get tripped up on these "character attack" questions frequently, because the tone of some of the arguments is hostile, and language is ambiguous...but the character attack answer NEVER seems to be the correct choice. Do you recommend just steering clear of that answer choice all together? Or can you please provide an example of a question in which that IS the correct answer, so I know what to look for? In other words, what constitutes as a "character attack" in the eyes of the LSAT authors? Thanks!

Create a free account to read and take part in forum discussions.

Already have an account? log in

Irina August 9, 2019

@ShannonOh22,

Generally, attacks on character are known as "ad hominem" fallacy when the author attacks the character of his opponent to discredit his/ her argument. These tactics are commonly used in political campaigns where the candidates focus on one's character instead of the substance of their position. Here are a couple of examples:

June 2005 Section 2 Q14

Roger Bacon, the thirteenthâ€“century scientist, is said to have made important discoveries in optics. He was an early advocate of hands-on experimentation, and as a teacher warned his students against relying uncritically on the opinions of authorities. Nevertheless, this did not stop Bacon himself from appealing to authority when it was expedient for his own argumentation. Thus, Bacon's work on optics should be generally disregarded, in view of the contradiction between his statements and his own behavior.

The reasoning in the argument is flawed because the argument:

(A) presumes, without providing justification, that authority opinion is often incorrect;
(B) attacks Bacon's uncritical reliance on authority opinion;
(C) uses Bacon's remarks to his students as evidence of his opinions;
(D)ignores the fact that thirteenthâ€“century science may not hold up well today;
(E) criticizes Bacon's character in order to question his scientific holdings.

Here is another example where a character attack is used in flawed parallel reasoning questions:

September 2014 Section 2 Q7

Party X has recently been accused by its opposition, Party Y, of accepting international campaign contributions, which is illegal. Such accusations are, however, ill-founded. Three years ago, Party Y itself was involved in a scandal in which it was discovered that its national committee seriously violated campaign laws. Which one of the following contains flawed reasoning most similar to the flawed reasoning in the argument above?

(A) The plaintiff accuses the defendant of violating campaign laws, but the accusations are ill founded. While the defendant's actions may violate certain laws, they are not immoral, because the laws in question are unjust;

(B) The plaintiff accuses the defendant of violating campaign laws, but these accusations show the plaintiff to be hypocritical, because the plaintiff has engaged in similar conduct;

(C) The plaintiff accuses the defendant of violating campaign laws, and, in the past, courts have declared such violations illegal. Nevertheless, because the plaintiff recently engaged in actions that were similar to those of the defendant, the plaintiff's accusations are ill-founded;

(D) The plaintiff accuses the defendant of violating campaign laws, but these accusations are ill founded. They are clearly an attempt to stir up controversy, because they were made just two weeks before the election;

(E) The plaintiff accuses the defendant of voting only for campaign laws that would favor the defendant's party. This accusation is ill founded, however, because it attacks the defendant's motivations instead of addressing the arguments the defendant has put forth justifying these votes.

October 2002 Section 4 Q17

Mullen has proposed to raise taxes on the rich, who made so much money during the past decade. Yet Mullen's tax records show heavy investment in business during that time and large profits; so Mullen's proposal does not deserve our consideration.

The flawed reasoning in the argument above is most similar to the flawed reasoning in which one of the following?

(A) Do not vote for Smith's proposed legislation to subsidize childcare for working parents; Smith is a working parent;

(B) Do not put any credence in Dr. Han's recent proposal to ban smoking in all public places; Dr. Han is a heavy smoker.

(C) The previous witness's testimony ought to be ignored; he has been convicted of both forgery and mail fraud.

(D) Board member Timm's proposal to raise the salaries of the company's middle managers does not deserve to be considered; Timm's daughter is a middle manager at the company's headquarters.

(E) Dr. Wasow's analysis of the design of this bridge should not be taken seriously; after all, Dr. Wasow has previously only designed factory buildings.

LSAT also occasionally tests variations of these attacks on a character by questioning someone's authority or origin of the idea, e.g. June 2007 LSAT, S2, Q17.