#1 - The editor of a magazine has pointed out several errors

[LSAT student]

Hello,

I thought that a magazine editor pointing out errors in a TV program was the flaw in this stimulus (perhaps an appeal to authority flaw/fallacy). So I looked for an answer where someone might be involved in two unrelated things. Using this reasoning I picked choice D. Looking back at the test, I had ruled B out completely on the basis that it did not seem to have any flawed reasoning to me! Imagine my surprise to see that this is the correct answer.

Can you help me with where I went wrong, and how I should have found the flaw/approached the problem instead?

[Frank Peter]

Hi LSAT Student,

The flaw in the reasoning here is an ad hominem attack. These arguments attack some characteristic of the party advancing the argument or position, rather than addressing it on its own terms. The problem with (D) is that it doesn't quite parallel the stimulus. It would have worked if it said: "Your coach cannot be trusted to judge our swimming practices: he is a bad swimmer." Instead (D) advances an argument that suggests some sort of conflict of interest, rather than some problem with the abilities or practices of the coach himself. (B) is a better argument then, because the thing the news program is judging (hiring practices) is something that they themselves are bad at.

[LSAT student]

Great. Thank you so much! So an ad hominem attack attacks a person or a group?

[Frank Peter]

Basically, yes. It is when someone responds to an argument by attacking a characteristic of the party advancing the argument, rather than the argument itself.