Political Commentator: Senator Harland has proposed a comprehensive tax reform bill that she argues will significantly reduce the tax burden on middle-class families. But we should not take her argument seriously. Senator Harland is a wealthy real estate developer, and her proposed legislation includes several complex provisions that would financially benefit the commercial real estate industry. It is obvious, then, that her tax reform bill will not actually reduce the tax burden on middle-class families.
The reasoning in the political commentator's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that the argument:
- Acriticizes the moral character of the senator instead of evaluating the evidence she provides for her position
- Bpresumes, without providing justification, that what is true of specific provisions within the legislation must be true of the legislation as a whole
- infers that a claim is false based solely on the observation that the proponent of the claim stands to benefit if it is acceptedAnswer
- Dattempts to weaken the senator's argument by directly contradicting the explicitly stated premises upon which she relies
- Etakes for granted that the complex provisions in the legislation were caused by the senator's background in real estate
Answer
The correct answer is the option stating that the argument infers that a claim is false based solely on the observation that the proponent of the claim stands to benefit if it is accepted.
The commentator's argument is fundamentally flawed because it dismisses Senator Harland's claim about middle-class tax relief simply because she has a financial motive to pass the bill. The argument fails to consider the possibility that the bill could simultaneously benefit both the real estate industry and middle-class families. By rejecting a claim based entirely on the source's vested interests rather than the logical merits of the claim itself, the argument commits a classic circumstantial ad hominem fallacy.
Step-by-Step Solution
Key Concept
Ad Hominem (Circumstantial/Source Argument) Flaw