LSAT (Law School Admission Test)Logical ReasoningMedium
Client: My financial advisor recommended that I invest in a particular biotechnology company, arguing that its recent breakthrough in gene editing technology will guarantee substantial returns. However, I am skeptical. This advisor has consistently recommended high-risk investments, and most of my previous investments based on their advice have performed poorly. Therefore, I should not invest in this biotechnology company.
- AIt dismisses the advisor's specific claim about the gene editing technology.
- BIt inappropriately attacks the source of the advice rather than the merits of the advice itself.
- CIt assumes that past performance is an accurate indicator of future results for all recommendations.
- DIt fails to consider that the advisor might have access to exclusive information.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: B. It inappropriately attacks the source of the advice rather than the merits of the advice itself.
The client rejects the investment advice not by evaluating the merits of the gene editing technology or the company's prospects, but by criticizing the advisor's past recommendations and general tendency towards high-risk investments. This is an ad hominem fallacy, specifically an attack on the source's credibility rather than the argument's substance.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. This option describes what the client does, but not the *flaw* in the client's reasoning for doing so. The flaw is *why* they dismiss it.
- C. While the client's reasoning relies on past performance, the core flaw is that they are judging the *advisor* rather than the specific investment's potential. The assumption about past performance is part of the attack on the source.
- D. The client's argument is not about the advisor's information access but about the advisor's track record. This option introduces an irrelevant consideration.
Ad Hominem (Circumstantial)
A fallacy where an argument is rejected or dismissed based on some characteristic or circumstance of the person making the argument, rather than on the merits of the argument itself.
- Focuses on the source's motives, character, or circumstances.
- Distracts from the actual argument being made.
- Does not logically refute the argument's content.
Memory trick: Remember, relevance is key; don't let personal attacks distract thee!