Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaAd Hominem (Source Argument)

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...

  1. rejects a claim merely by pointing to the vested financial interests of the person advancing itCevap
  2. B
    assumes that what is true of specific local fish populations must be true of the entire marine ecosystem
  3. C
    confuses a correlation between the sanctuary's current size and population stability with a causal relationship
  4. D
    treats the concept of population stability in a scientific context as though it were identical to economic stability
  5. E
    mischaracterizes a piece of contextual information about the fishing industry as the primary premise of the opposing argument

Cevap

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.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the conclusion of the marine biologist's argument.
The conclusion is that we should disregard Dr. Kaelen's assessment that expanding the sanctuary is unnecessary.
Finding the main conclusion is the first step in evaluating the structure of any logical reasoning argument.
2
Identify the premises provided to support this conclusion.
The only premise provided is that Dr. Kaelen's research institute is funded by a commercial fishing consortium that would lose money if the sanctuary expands.
Understanding the evidence reveals how the author attempts to prove their point.
3
Evaluate the relationship between the premise and the conclusion to find the logical flaw.
The biologist completely ignores Dr. Kaelen's actual evidence (stable fish populations) and instead dismisses the conclusion entirely based on Dr. Kaelen's potential bias or financial affiliations.
Dismissing an argument based on the characteristics, motives, or circumstances of the source rather than the merit of the evidence is a classic Ad Hominem flaw.

Anahtar Kavram

Ad Hominem (Source Argument)
Tahmini Süre:1m 15s
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Ad Hominem (Source Argument)

Bu konudan daha fazla soru