Council Member Evans: We should implement the proposed toll on the downtown bridge. Studies from similar cities demonstrate that such tolls reliably reduce rush-hour traffic congestion by up to 20 percent while lowering air pollution.
Council Member Perez: I urge the council to reject Evans's proposal. As everyone knows, Evans owns a major stake in the city's light rail company, which stands to gain thousands of new daily riders if driving into downtown becomes more expensive. Clearly, her proposal is just a scheme to enrich herself.
The reasoning in Perez's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it...
- rejects a conclusion on the basis of the purported motives of the person advancing it, while ignoring the evidence offered in support of that conclusionAnswer
- Bbases its conclusion on unverified outside information regarding the financial holdings of a council member
- Cpresumes, without providing justification, that implementing a toll will cause a reduction in traffic, rather than merely being correlated with it
- Dmischaracterizes background information regarding the light rail company's ridership as an actively stated premise of the initial argument
- Eillicitly trades on an ambiguity in the term 'scheme' as it is used by the two speakers
Answer
The correct option is the one stating that the argument rejects a conclusion on the basis of the purported motives of the person advancing it, while ignoring the evidence offered in support of that conclusion.
The correct option perfectly captures the circumstantial Ad Hominem flaw. Perez attempts to invalidate Evans's policy proposal strictly by pointing out Evans's vested financial interest in its outcome. In doing so, Perez commits a logical fallacy because a person's motives for making an argument do not necessarily render their supporting evidence (the traffic studies) false or irrelevant.
Step-by-Step Solution
Key Concept
Ad Hominem (Source Argument) Fallacy