Examkin

Soru

Zorluk: OrtaAd Hominem (Source Argument)

Tech Journalist: A prominent internet commentator recently published a scathing review of the new Helios smartphone, arguing that its battery life is inadequate and its software is extremely buggy. However, this commentator is notorious across online forums for being an abrasive, ill-tempered individual who seems to take pleasure in being universally disliked. Because of the commentator's thoroughly unpleasant personality, we should completely disregard their critique of the Helios smartphone.

The tech journalist's argument is most vulnerable to criticism on the grounds that it

  1. dismisses a claim about a product's performance solely by criticizing the character of the individual making the claimCevap
  2. B
    attacks a piece of background information in the commentator's review as if it were a structural premise supporting the commentator's conclusion
  3. C
    fails to consider the possibility that the commentator's abrasive personality is an effect, rather than the cause, of their frustrating experiences with the smartphone
  4. D
    relies on a subtle equivocation, conflating a negative personality trait with a logically negative evaluation of a product
  5. E
    faults the commentator for relying on outside information that was not explicitly stated in the smartphone's official documentation

Cevap

The argument is flawed because it dismisses a claim about a product based entirely on the negative personality traits of the person making the claim.
The correct answer accurately describes the logical flaw in the tech journalist's argument. The journalist concludes that the commentator's critique of the smartphone should be disregarded, but the only evidence provided is an attack on the commentator's personal traits (being abrasive and ill-tempered). A person's unpleasant character does not logically invalidate their factual claims about a product's battery life or software quality. This is a classic Ad Hominem (Source Argument) fallacy.

Adım Adım Çözüm

1
Identify the main conclusion of the tech journalist's argument.
The conclusion is that we should completely disregard the commentator's critique of the Helios smartphone.
Identifying the conclusion is the essential first step in evaluating any argument's logical structure.
2
Identify the premise provided to support this conclusion.
The sole premise is that the commentator is notorious for being an abrasive and ill-tempered individual with a bad attitude.
Understanding the evidence allows us to evaluate the connection between the premise and the conclusion.
3
Evaluate the logical relationship between the premise and the conclusion.
The premise attacks the commentator's personal character, which is logically irrelevant to the factual accuracy of their claims about the smartphone's battery life and software.
This step reveals the core vulnerability in the reasoning: an attack on the source rather than the substance of the argument.
4
Select the option that accurately describes this structural flaw.
The correct option states that the argument dismisses a claim solely by criticizing the character of the individual making the claim.
This abstract description perfectly matches the Ad Hominem fallacy demonstrated in the stimulus.

Anahtar Kavram

Ad Hominem (Source Argument)
Bu soruyu puanla

Konular

Ad Hominem (Source Argument)

Bu konudan daha fazla soru