PrepTest 109, Section 1, Question 21
Attacks on an opponent's character should be avoided(29 more words not shown)
Which one of the following(10 more words not shown)
- AAttacks on an(12 more words not shown)
- BAttacks on an(10 more words not shown)
- CDebating techniques that(8 more words not shown)
- DAttacking the character(16 more words not shown)
- EQuestions of character(14 more words not shown)
Reading the argument
If someone proposes a tax policy, calling that person a liar doesn't answer the argument for the policy. I can see why the author wants political debaters to address the reasoning instead of attacking each other.
But could character matter in a political debate? Suppose a candidate is seeking a position with enormous power. Voters might reasonably care whether that person is trustworthy. Winning an argument about one policy isn't necessarily the only thing we want to learn about a potential leader.
That's my hesitation about the recommendation. The author explains that character attacks challenge the opponent's right to participate rather than the opponent's argument. Why does that mean we should avoid them? We still need a rule saying that this failure to address the argument is enough to rule out a debating technique.
What we’re looking for
Now we're asked to help justify the recommendation. That means supporting the author despite our earlier concern. I'd look for a principle that makes confronting the arguments the standard for what belongs in the debate.
Working the answers
- A
This explains why someone might resort to a character attack: the person cannot answer the argument properly. It doesn't establish that the attack should therefore be avoided. A cause of the behavior isn't a rule about whether to engage in it. We still need the step from “doesn't confront the argument” to “shouldn't be used.”
- B
This tells the audience how to react. The conclusion tells the debaters what to avoid. Those aren't interchangeable. Something might fail to impress the audience without being something the debater should never use. B doesn't supply the author's rule against these attacks.
- CCorrect
The author says character attacks don't confront the opponent's argument. C says techniques that fail to confront every argument should be avoided. A technique that doesn't confront the opponent's argument fails that standard, so C gives us a reason to avoid it.
This is a demanding rule; plenty of other techniques might fail it too. But the question asks for a principle that helps justify this conclusion, not the most reasonable rule for running a real debate. C connects the stated problem with character attacks to the recommendation to avoid them.
- D
Whether an attack preserves the speaker's right to enter future debates is a different question. Even if the attack does nothing to preserve that right, why must the speaker avoid it now? “Does nothing to help this other goal” is not yet a reason to prohibit it. D doesn't connect the author's stated objection to the conclusion.
- E
This allows questions of character when they are relevant to the argument. It resembles our initial concern that character can sometimes matter. But it doesn't support the author's general recommendation against character attacks. It gives a condition for raising a character issue, not a rule explaining why failing to confront the argument means a technique should be avoided.
More Strengthen questions
Learn the LSAT our way
Our platform drills Strengthen questions at your level and adjusts as you improve.