LNAT Addressing Counterarguments 3 — Questions and Answers
Question 1: A passage argues: 'University education should be free.' A counterargument states: 'Free tuition benefits wealthy students more than poor ones, since wealthy students attend university at higher rates.' This is best described as:
- An ad hominem attack on universities
- A counterargument that turns the author's equity goal against the proposal itself (Correct answer)
- A red herring about university attendance statistics
- A straw man of the original argument
Correct answer: A counterargument that turns the author's equity goal against the proposal itself
This counterargument uses distributional data to argue the policy fails on its own terms — undermining the equity rationale from within.
Question 2: When evaluating a counterargument in an LNAT passage, which question is LEAST useful?
- Does the counterargument address the actual claim or a distorted version?
- Is the evidence provided by the counterargument verifiable?
- Is the person making the counterargument likeable? (Correct answer)
- Does the counterargument reveal a genuine weakness in the main argument?
Correct answer: Is the person making the counterargument likeable?
The likeability of the person raising the counterargument is irrelevant to its logical validity — this is an ad hominem fallacy.
Question 3: An author argues for lowering the voting age to 16. A counterargument states: 'Teenagers are still developing neurologically and lack life experience.' The author responds: 'Many adults also lack relevant political knowledge, yet we do not restrict their right to vote.' This response uses which technique?
- Attacking the scientific evidence directly
- Drawing a parallel to show the counterargument applies equally to those already included, making it an arbitrary distinction (Correct answer)
- Conceding that brain development is irrelevant to voting
- Introducing new evidence about teenage civic engagement
Correct answer: Drawing a parallel to show the counterargument applies equally to those already included, making it an arbitrary distinction
By showing the counterargument's logic would also exclude some adults, the author reveals it does not justify treating 16-year-olds differently.
Question 4: What does it mean when a counterargument 'cuts both ways'?
- The counterargument is so complex it confuses all readers
- The logic of the counterargument, if accepted, would also undermine the position of the person raising it (Correct answer)
- The counterargument is equally strong and weak at the same time
- The counterargument relies on two separate pieces of evidence
Correct answer: The logic of the counterargument, if accepted, would also undermine the position of the person raising it
A counterargument that 'cuts both ways' is self-defeating because its own logic would damage the opposition's position as well.
Question 5: A passage advocates stricter gun control. A counterargument argues: 'Criminals don't obey laws, so new gun laws will only disarm law-abiding citizens.' Which response most effectively rebuts this?
- Criminals are obviously bad people who deserve no consideration
- This logic would invalidate all laws since criminals disobey them, yet laws still reduce crime by raising costs and limiting access (Correct answer)
- We should simply trust that criminals will change their behavior
- Gun control has always been controversial and no solution is perfect
Correct answer: This logic would invalidate all laws since criminals disobey them, yet laws still reduce crime by raising costs and limiting access
Showing the counterargument's logic would eliminate all legislation reveals its flaw, while empirical data on how laws deter crime addresses its substance.
Question 6: In a formal argument, a 'limiting concession' is used to:
- Fully accept the counterargument and revise the main thesis
- Narrow the scope of a counterargument's validity while protecting the core claim (Correct answer)
- Dismiss the counterargument as outside the debate's scope
- Introduce a new argument unrelated to the counterargument raised
Correct answer: Narrow the scope of a counterargument's validity while protecting the core claim
A limiting concession acknowledges the counterargument holds in some cases while asserting it does not apply broadly enough to defeat the main claim.
Question 7: An LNAT passage argues that plea bargaining undermines justice. A counterargument notes: 'Plea bargaining reduces court backlogs and spares victims the trauma of trials.' What approach would BEST address this counterargument?
- Assert that court efficiency is never a legitimate legal concern
- Acknowledge the practical benefits but argue they do not justify systematic undercharging of serious offenses (Correct answer)
- Claim victims prefer trials to plea deals without evidence
- Repeat the original claim that plea bargaining is unjust
Correct answer: Acknowledge the practical benefits but argue they do not justify systematic undercharging of serious offenses
Acknowledging the real benefits before arguing they are outweighed by systemic injustice demonstrates honest, balanced reasoning.
LNAT Addressing Counterarguments 3
A passage argues: 'University education should be free.' A counterargument states: 'Free tuition benefits wealthy students more than poor ones, since wealthy students attend university at higher rates.' This is best described as: