VIPLSATCracking LSAT makes you a VIP.

Logical Reasoning · Flaw

PrepTest 129 · Section 3 · Question 2

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
Throwing out an argument because the person giving it does not follow it himself.
The basic logic
Look for a conclusion that an argument is bad, backed only by a fact about the arguer's own behavior. Whether someone lives by their argument does not show the argument is wrong.
Tiny words that decide it
  • “merely”
  • “but”
  • “so”

Playground logic

Top bun: Tommy says Marcus's argument about candy before dinner should be ignored. The patty is only that Marcus himself eats candy before dinner. That is Attack the Kid in its 'you do it too' costume: the arguer's habits, not the argument's reasons, get judged.

Step 2 · The kid story

Marcus and the Candy Rule

At the lunch table, Marcus gave a speech. "Eating candy right before dinner is a bad idea. It ruins your appetite, and then you skip your vegetables." Most of the table rolled their eyes. Tommy, who had three gummy worms hidden in his sock drawer, grinned. "Nobody should listen to that," he said. "I saw Marcus eat a whole chocolate bar ten minutes before dinner yesterday!" The table laughed. Priya set down her juice box. "Tommy, that tells us Marcus doesn't follow his own advice," she said. "It doesn't tell us his reasons are wrong. Candy could still ruin your appetite even if Marcus is the worst rule follower in the fifth grade." Tommy thought about his sock drawer and stayed quiet.

Step 3 · Try the model question

Tommy: Marcus says eating candy before dinner is unwise because it spoils your appetite. Nobody should accept that. Marcus himself ate a chocolate bar right before dinner yesterday.

The reasoning in Tommy's argument is questionable because it

Choices

Step 4 · The courtroom tale

The Case of the Messy Safety Inspector

Inspector Dunmore testified that the toy factory's ladders were wobbly and unsafe. The factory's lawyer stood up. "Your Honor, this inspector's own garage ladder is held together with tape! Why should we believe a word about ladders?" The jury murmured. Mr. Whitfield rose and adjusted his suspenders. "Your Honor, the inspector's garage is not on trial. His reasons are: loose bolts, cracked rungs, and three broken photos of each. Whether he fixes his own ladder says nothing about whether these ladders are safe." The judge nodded. "Objection sustained. We judge the reasons, not the reasoner's garage."

Step 5 · Work the real question

Open PrepTest 129, Section 3, Question 2 in your official copy from LSAC (for example in LawHub) and read it there.

Your answer

How to apply it

Find the conclusion: some argument is rejected. Then find the support and ask whether it is about the argument's reasons or about the person who gave it. If the support is only that the person does not live by what they argued, that is Attack the Kid. Pick the answer that names that move in abstract terms, and skip answers describing moves the argument never makes.