Top Law Schools

This question was weird for me. I picked (E) my first time doing this question but after thorough review of the question I know see why it's not correct. However I fail to see how (A) is correct.

The author uses ad hominem attacks on R to conclude that his book does not merit any scientific attention from serious professionals.

However the correct answer (A) talks about how the author uses ad hominems as evidence to show that R is "not competent on matters of scientific substance". However if you pay attention to the stem, this is not what the author concludes, he concludes that his book doesn't merit scientific attention, which is quite different from his competency. His book may very well not merit any attention in spite of his competence. Can someone explain this to me?

My reasoning for eliminating the other answers is as follows:

(B) This is what R does, not the book reviewer.
(C) He doesn't discuss any scientific theory.
(D) We have no way to ascertain whether or not the assertions he makes about the book are unverifiable, but presumably they are.
(E) This would be true if the book reviewer conluded that R's book was not sufficiently interesting to merit serious attention on the basis that his claims were false. However the book reviewer doesn't do this. He doesn't challenge the veracity of R's claims, rather he uses them to justify his own conclusion.

Barack Obama 2.0 wrote:This question was weird for me. I picked (E) my first time doing this question but after thorough review of the question I know see why it's not correct. However I fail to see how (A) is correct.

The author uses ad hominem attacks on R to conclude that his book does not mention any scientific attention from serious professionals.

However the correct answer (A) talks about how the author uses ad hominems as evidence to show that R is "not competent on matters of scientific substance". However if you pay attention to the stem, this is not what the author concludes, he concludes that his book doesn't merit scientific attention, which is quite different from his competency. His book may very well not merit any attention in spite of his competence. Can someone explain this to me?

My reasoning for eliminating the other answers is as follows:

(B) This is what R does, not the book reviewer.
(C) He doesn't discuss any scientific theory.
(D) We have no way to ascertain whether or not the assertions he makes about the book are unverifiable, but presumably they are.
(E) This would be true if the book reviewer conluded that R's book was not sufficiently interesting to merit serious attention on the basis that his claims were false. However the book reviewer doesn't do this. He doesn't challenge the veracity of R's claims and uses them to justify his own conclusion.

I also had this question narrowed down between A and E. You are correct that E is wrong because the argument doesn't challenge the truthfulness of R's book.

You're also right that A isn't a perfect match... competency is not necessarily the same thing as meriting attention. However, compared to the flaws in the rest of the answers, it's a fairly small leap to make.

This is a question that can only really be solved by a process of elimination. It's annoying that the LSAT does this to us, but take a close look at the directions portion written above every section: "you are to choose the best answer; that is, the response that most accurately and completely answers the question." It doesn't say to select the correct answer. It is wrong to assume that every question in the test has a perfect, exact answer, as much as we might want it to. There's guaranteed to be a couple questions like this every test, all you can do is eliminate the ones that are obviously wrong, hedge your best bet, and move on.