Logic Breakdown

Passage Summary: Someone claims a political party is innocent of a crime simply because the people accusing them are also guilty of breaking the law.

Conclusion: The accusations that Party X accepted illegal campaign contributions are not based on fact.

Reasoning: The group making the accusations, Party Y, was itself caught violating campaign laws in a scandal three years ago.

Analysis: This argument commits a classic 'tu quoque' or 'appeal to hypocrisy' fallacy. Instead of addressing the evidence against Party X, the speaker attacks the character of the accuser to dismiss the claim. It is the logical equivalent of a child saying they didn't steal a cookie because their brother stole a brownie last week. Look for an answer choice that rejects a claim solely because the person making the claim is a hypocrite.

Passage Stimulus

Passage Redacted

Unlock Full Passage

7.

Which one of the following contains flawed reasoning most similar to the flawed reasoning in the argument above?

Correct Answer
C
C mirrors the tu quoque structure: it deems the plaintiff’s accusations ill founded because the plaintiff engaged in similar conduct, even acknowledging that such conduct is illegal. Like the stimulus, it tries to invalidate the accusation by pointing to the accuser’s hypocrisy rather than addressing whether the defendant actually violated the law.
Upgrade Your Prep

Ready to go beyond free explanations?

LSAT Perfection is the #1 modern LSAT prep platform, trusted by thousands of students for comprehensive test strategies, advanced drilling, and full analytics on every PrepTest.

Detailed explanations for 59 PrepTests
Advanced drillset builder
Personalized analytics
Built-in Wrong Answer Journal
Explore Perfection Plus for full LSAT prep