Flaw IV: Equivocation, Part–Whole, Ad Hominem & Appeals
Recap: Flaw, Part 4 — Equivocation, Part-Whole, Ad Hominem
Two more Flaw clusters before Week 5 moves to the assumption family: arguments that shift a term's meaning, arguments that confuse a part's properties with the whole's (or vice versa), and arguments that attack the arguer instead of the argument.
1. Equivocation
A key term is used in two different senses across the argument — same word, different meaning, and the argument depends on nobody noticing the shift.
2. Part-Whole Flaws
Assuming what's true of the parts is true of the whole (composition) or what's true of the whole is true of each part (division) — neither is guaranteed in general.
3. Ad Hominem and Appeals
Attacking the source of a claim instead of the claim's content, or appealing to popularity/tradition/authority as if that alone settled the matter.
Practice items on this page are curriculum-authored in LSAT style; they are not official LSAC questions. Real drilling happens on LawHub — see the assignment below.
Q1. Argument: "This engine is powerful, and this chassis is lightweight, so this car must be fast." Which flaw is most clearly present?
LawHub drill-tier LR section, untimed. Scan for Flaw stems only.
Tomorrow closes out the Flaw sequence: numeric flaws, absence-of-evidence arguments, false choice, and circular reasoning.