Ad Hominem
Attacking the person instead of the argument.
What it is
Ad hominem means 'to the person.' The argument attacks the person making the claim instead of the claim itself.
A bad person can say something true. A good person can say something false. On the LSAT, you judge the reasoning, not the speaker.
An LSAT-style example
This example is original. It is not a real LSAT question.
Senator Vale's plan to cut traffic is worthless. She has three unpaid parking tickets. Someone who cannot follow parking rules cannot be trusted on traffic policy.
The flaw: The parking tickets are about the senator, not the plan. Her record says nothing about whether the plan would work.
How to spot it on test day
- The conclusion is about a claim or policy, but the evidence is about the person.
- Watch for insults, motives, or past mistakes doing the work of an argument.
- Ask: if a different person said the same thing, would the evidence still apply?
The right answer vs. the trap
The right answer
The correct answer says the argument substitutes an attack on the person for evidence about the claim.
The trap
The trap often describes a different flaw, like begging the question or a bad analogy. Check what the argument actually does: it attacks the speaker.
Find your weak flaws
The free diagnostic scores every question type, including flaw questions, and shows exactly where you are losing points.