VIPLSATCracking LSAT makes you a VIP.

Logical Reasoning · Flaw

PrepTest 110 · Section 2 · Question 1

Phase 1 (your first ~400 questions): read the guidance, then answer. No clock.

Step 1 · Pre-Question Guidance · read this first

Question type
Flaw
The one idea it tests
Bad things about the person are not evidence that the person's work is wrong.
The basic logic
Find the top bun: a judgment about someone's work. Then check the patty. If every piece of evidence is about the person (their manners, their motives, their mood) and none is about the work itself, you have Attack the Kid.
Tiny words that decide it
  • “so”
  • “clear that”
  • “does not merit”

Playground logic

Marcus wants everyone to ignore Kevin's kickball plan. His patty is all about Kevin (he brags, he is messy, he is grumpy), and his top bun is about the plan. The secret sauce is that a grumpy kid cannot make a good plan, and that is Attack the Kid.

Step 2 · The kid story

The Kickball Plan Nobody Read

Kevin spent all of Sunday drawing a kickball plan. It had arrows, circles, and one small dinosaur in the corner for luck. On Monday he showed it to the team. Marcus did not even look at the paper. "Team, listen up," Marcus said. "Kevin brags all the time. Kevin's desk is a disaster. Last week Kevin was grumpy at recess. So this plan is not worth our time." Priya sipped her juice box. "Marcus, you told us three things about Kevin," she said. "You told us zero things about the plan. Is the plan bad because the arrows are wrong? Or just because you are mad at Kevin?" Marcus opened his mouth, then closed it. Lulu wrote on her clipboard: Judge the plan, not the planner. The team read the plan. The arrows were actually pretty good.

Step 3 · Try the model question

Marcus: Kevin brags all the time, his desk is a mess, and he was grumpy at recess last week. So the kickball plan he drew is not worth the team's time.

Marcus's reasoning is most open to which criticism?

Choices

Step 4 · The courtroom tale

The Case of the Crooked Fence

A homeowner sued a builder over a fence that leaned. The builder's lawyer, Mr. Pratt, stood up. "Your Honor, the homeowner's measuring expert is rude. He was late twice. He wears socks that do not match. So his measurements of this fence mean nothing." Mr. Whitfield snapped his suspenders. "Your Honor, my colleague has given us a full report on my expert's socks. He has given us no report on my expert's tape measure. If the numbers are wrong, show me the wrong number. Until then, the fence still leans." The judge nodded. "Rudeness is not a ruler, Mr. Pratt. Sit down." The fence, sadly, kept leaning.

Step 5 · Work the real question

Open PrepTest 110, Section 2, Question 1 in your official copy from LSAC (for example in LawHub) and read it there.

Your answer

How to apply it

Read the argument and mark the top bun: a verdict about someone's work. Then sort every piece of evidence into two piles: facts about the work, and facts about the person. If the first pile is empty, the flaw is an attack on the person instead of the work. Pick the answer that names that move. Be careful with choices that describe a mistake the author never made; check each against the actual patty.