Marine Biologist: Dr. Kaelen argues that the proposed expansion of the coral reef sanctuary is unnecessary, citing data that shows local fish populations have remained stable over the past five years. However, we should disregard Dr. Kaelen's assessment. The research institute where Dr. Kaelen works is heavily funded by the commercial fishing consortium, a group that stands to lose substantial revenue if the sanctuary boundaries are expanded.
The marine biologist's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it...
- rejects a claim merely by pointing to the vested financial interests of the person advancing itAnswer
- Bassumes that what is true of specific local fish populations must be true of the entire marine ecosystem
- Cconfuses a correlation between the sanctuary's current size and population stability with a causal relationship
- Dtreats the concept of population stability in a scientific context as though it were identical to economic stability
- Emischaracterizes a piece of contextual information about the fishing industry as the primary premise of the opposing argument
Answer
rejects a claim merely by pointing to the vested financial interests of the person advancing it
The correct answer accurately diagnoses the specific reasoning error in the stimulus. The marine biologist never addresses the substantive merit of Dr. Kaelen's data regarding local fish populations. Instead, the biologist attempts to invalidate Dr. Kaelen's conclusion solely by pointing out that Dr. Kaelen is funded by an industry with a financial stake in the outcome. This is a classic circumstantial source argument (Ad Hominem) flaw.
Step-by-Step Solution
Key Concept
Ad Hominem (Source Argument)
Estimated Time:1m 15s