Q21 - Attacks on an opponent's character

[zainrizvi]

Slightly puzzled by this question. What does the answer choice (C) actually mean? Confused by the "do not confront EVERY argument" bit.

[timmydoeslsat]

We will first identify the core of the argument:

The conclusion:

Attacks on the character of the opponent should be avoided in political debates.

Evidence for this?

Two pieces that work in tandem.

- Attacks do not confront the opponent's argument.

- Attacks attempt to put doubt on the moral right of the opponent to be in the debate.


Now tell me, do those two premises entail the conclusion "Attacks on the character of the opponent should be avoided in political debates."

No!

Just because those two things happen, why is it that those things should be avoided? Politics is a contact sport!

We obviously need a principle to justify this claim of what "should" be avoided.

We need something to connect those two premises with our concept of "personal attacks on an opponent should be avoided."

A) That does not allow us to conclude "should avoid personal attacks!" It may be true those attacks result from an inability, but who is to say that it cannot be done?

B) Should not impress those watching a debate? That answer choice will not lead us to a conclusion of "should avoid personal attacks on an opponent." If we plugged that into the argument, will that help entail our conclusion? No. Eliminate.

C) Debating techniques that do not confront every argument should be avoided.

In the stimulus, we are told that attacks on a person's character do not confront the opponent's argument. Thus, we have a case of a technique that does not confront every argument. This answer choice tells us that it should be avoided!

This is our answer.

D) Preserve one's moral right? Further debates? This is a detail creep answer choice meant to tempt you. It tries to get you in on this idea of casting doubt on the opponent's moral right to be in the debate. But these detail switches make this an incorrect answer. Eliminate.

E) Questions of character should be raised? We have a should aspect in this answer, but it has nothing to do with should avoid attacks! If we plugged this into the original argument, will it lead us to should avoid personal attacks on an opponent? No. Eliminate.

[LSAT-Chang]

B) Should not impress those watching a debate? That answer choice will not lead us to a conclusion of "should avoid personal attacks on an opponent." If we plugged that into the argument, will that help entail our conclusion? No. Eliminate.

I chose the correct answer (C) for this since it nicely bridges the gap between the premise and the conclusion, but after reading your explanation, it made me wonder.. wouldn't it be kind of common sense and logical to conclude that the attack's on the opponent's character should be avoided if those attacks are not going to impress those watching a political debate? Do you see my point?

[timmydoeslsat]

it made me wonder.. wouldn't it be kind of common sense and logical to conclude that the attack's on the opponent's character should be avoided if those attacks are not going to impress those watching a political debate? Do you see my point?

Choice B: "Attacks on an opponent's character should not impress those watching a political debate."

As you can see, this would not lead us justifying "attacks should be avoided."

I do not see why one should necessarily avoid attacking the opponent's character even if the attacks do not impress those watching a political debate. Maybe I care about rattling the opponent. The audience might not be impressed with what I did, but I have the other person rattled. He/she will give off bad answers. Just because they aren't impressed does not mean I should not do it.

Should is a very powerful word.

[LSAT-Chang]

I do not see why one should necessarily avoid attacking the opponent's character even if the attacks do not impress those watching a political debate. Maybe I care about rattling the opponent. The audience might not be impressed with what I did, but I have the other person rattled. He/she will give off bad answers. Just because they aren't impressed does not mean I should not do it.

Should is a very powerful word.

Makes perfect sense. Basically answer choice (C) does not guarantee the author's conclusion. Like you said, even if it does not impress those watching a political debate, maybe I still should attack an opponent's character for other reasons!

[demetri.blaisdell]

I love to see you two getting deep in to these answer choices. One more small point on (B). It seemed like you were assuming that (B) said that those watching are not impressed by attacks on character. In fact, it says they should not be impressed. That doesn't tell us any information about whether or not people are impressed, just that whoever wrote (B) thinks they shouldn't be.

Quick analogy: People shouldn't be impressed by Lady Gaga's new album. It's boring and lacks creativity. Are people impressed? Impossible to know from just this statement.

This answer choice is tempting if you're just looking for the language match ("should" in this case). The devil is in the details!

I hope that little extra postscript helps. Great work on this one.

Demetri

[bigtree65]

E: questions of character should be raised in political debate if they are relevant to the opponent's argument

Contrapositive: if they are irrelevant to an opponent's argument questions of character should not be raised in political debate.

I thought this bridged the gap, is this wrong because the conclusion "attacks on an opponent's character should be avoided in political debates" is stating that all attacks on character should be avoided and the conditional in E is too narrow and doesn't cover all attacks?

[demetri.blaisdell]

bigtree65,

Sorry it too so long to get back to you; I somehow overlooked your post. Thank you for your question. Conditional logic is such a tough part of the curriculum and I'm glad you brought it up here.

(E) says "Questions of character should be raised in political debate if they are relevant to the opponent’s argument."

Watch out for the order of the words versus the order of the logic. The clause that comes after the word "if" is the condition. The proper form for that logical statement is:

Question is relevant ---> Should be raised

and the contrapositive:

Question should not be raised ---> Question is not relevant

In this formulation of the principle, the logic flows the wrong way so it won't fill the gap. Let me know if you have any more questions about this. Thanks again for a great question and being patient for the answer.

Demetri

[minhtientm249]

timmydoeslsat wrote:

"Now tell me, do those two premises entail the conclusion "Attacks on the character of the opponent should be avoided in political debates."

No!"

Doesn't the argument imply that all attacks on the opponent's character should be avoided?

Correct me if I'm wrong but that's where I'm confused. I picked C because it was the strongest answer.

[demetri.blaisdell]

Thanks for your question, minhtientm249.

Timmydoeslsat was pointing to the two "premises" after the conclusion. They tell us two consequences of attacking an opponent's character during a debate. But, they don't tell us what we should or shouldn't do (a normative conclusion).

We need a normative premise to justify that conclusion.

We get that in (C): that these debate tactics should be avoided.

Also note that in the conclusion in the stimulus, they write that attacks "should be avoided in political debates" (not in general). (C) is a good language match for that.

I hope this helps!

Demetri

[cdjmarmon]

Im very thrown off by the "every argument" aspect of C which is why I got rid of it.

I know we are picking a principle so it is supposed to be broad compared to the stimulus. But isnt "every argument" too broad?

[timmydoeslsat]

If this principle were true, then our argument would be 100% proven and justified.

What do we know about attacking an opponent's character?

It does not confront his or her argument. It also does other stuff too, and addressing either one of these points along with the idea of "should avoid" would be a correct answer. The test writers addressed the premise of the lack of confronting an opponent's argument.

So the principle of debating techniques that do not address every argument should be avoided would give us a valid argument. We know that this technique does not address every argument, as we know it does address the opponent's argument.

[Mab6q]

I was hesitant to pick C because I though it was too much. Is it correct because it it strong enough to prove the conclusion? I mean "every argument" is strong, and is more than what is needed. But should we not be wary of those answers on principle questions?

[christine.defenbaugh]

Mab6q, you bring up an excellent question!

This goes to the heart of what our task on a principle support question is. A typical stem reads:

"Which one of the following principles, if valid, most helps to justify the reasoning above?"

We want the answer that most justifies the reasoning. If it goes way, way too far, who cares?! All we care about is how much it will justify the conclusion. The more the better!

Take a simplified example:

Premise: Jack is wearing a blue shirt.
Conclusion: Jack is going dancing.

Which of these principles would justify that?
1) If Jack wears a blue shirt, he must go dancing.
2) If Jack wears anything blue, he must go dancing.
3) Anyone who wears a blue shirt must go dancing.
4) Anyone who wears anything blue, ever, in any way, must then go dancing.

All of these justify that conclusion! Some go farther than they need to, but they all get the job done.

Now, if this started to smell a bit like a Sufficient Assumption, you'd be spot on. Principles often dress like Sufficient Assumptions (though not always). And just like Sufficient Assumptions, they can be stronger than they need to be.

In this question, since character attacks are certainly in the category of 'debating techniques that do not confront every argument', this principle will absolutely help to justify the conclusion.

Please let me know if that completely answered your question!

[jeremygoldstein7]

I was also thrown off by the word "every". I understand how "attacks [that] do not confront the opponent's argument" fall into the category of a debating technique that does not confront every argument, but what would classify as a debating technique that DOES confront every argument? It seems like such a technique doesn't exist ( it doesn't really make any sense...). Does this question even need an answer for the LSAT test makers to include such an answer to a question?