Examkin

Question

Difficulty: EasyAd Hominem (Source Argument)

Consider the following argument:

"Dr. Aris Thorne argues that the city must replace its aging water pipes to prevent a public health crisis. However, Dr. Thorne is the owner of a plumbing manufacturing company that would likely secure the replacement contract. Therefore, we should reject his claim that the pipes are a threat to public health."

The reasoning in this argument is flawed because it rejects a conclusion based on the vested interest of the person making the claim, rather than addressing the evidence provided for that claim.

Answer: Answer

Answer

True
The argument commits a classic circumstantial ad hominem fallacy. It attempts to refute Dr. Thorne's public health warning by pointing out his financial interest in the outcome, entirely bypassing the substantive issue of whether the pipes are actually failing. The statement correctly describes this exact reasoning error.

Step-by-Step Solution

1
Identify the conclusion of the argument.
The conclusion is that the city should reject Dr. Thorne's claim about the pipes being a threat to public health.
Understanding the conclusion shows what the author is trying to prove.
2
Identify the premise used to support the conclusion.
The sole premise is that Dr. Thorne owns a plumbing company and would benefit financially from the replacement.
Identifying the premise reveals the basis of the author's reasoning.
3
Evaluate the logical connection between the premise and the conclusion.
The premise attacks Dr. Thorne's motives (a circumstantial ad hominem) rather than addressing the factual claim about the pipes' condition.
This confirms that the flaw described in the statement accurately matches the flaw committed in the argument.

Key Concept

Ad Hominem (Source Argument - Circumstantial)
Estimated Time:45s
Rate this question

Topics

Ad Hominem (Source Argument)

More questions from this topic