Party X has recently been accused

Answer choices

1. A

   Bad Evidence Match1% picked this

   The plaintiff accuses the defendant of violating campaign laws, but the accusations are ill founded. While the defendant's actions may violate certain laws, they

   At first, the similarity in topic and language (campaign laws / ill founded accusations) makes this seem like a trap answer. But all five answers have that trait, so that can't be our sole reason for disliking it. This argument is dismissing a point of view (the plaintiff's accusations are ill founded). Does the evidence say, "After all, this plaintiff did something similar in the past"? Nope. It says that the laws in question are unjust.

   1%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match27% picked this

   The plaintiff accuses the defendant of violating campaign laws, but these accusations show the plaintiff to be hypocritical, because the plaintiff

   This correctly matches the Evidence: the person making the accusations was guilty of similar accusations in the past. But it doesn't match the conclusion. The conclusion of the original argument wasn't that, "In accusing Party X, Party Y has shown itself to be hypocritical." That would be a more valid conclusion. Instead, it was "Party Y's accusations are ill-founded". Here we would need something like "The plaintiff's accusations are ill-founded". Citing someone's past behavior to support the idea that they're being hypocritical isn't flawed. That's how you prove hypocrisy: your actions don't match your rhetoric. Citing someone's past behavior to support the idea that their claim is wrong or should be ignored is what's flawed. Someone who is decrying instances of sexual abuse should be taken seriously, even if they themselves have been accused of sexual abuse in the past.

   27%
3. C

   Correct69% picked this

   The plaintiff accuses the defendant of violating campaign laws, and, in the past, courts have declared such violations illegal. Nevertheless, because the plaintiff recently

   Why this is right

   This matches the original argument's flaw -- it tries to prove that certain accusations are ill founded by citing conflicting past behavior on the part of those making the accusations ("because the plaintiff recently engaged in similar actions, the plaintiff's accusations are ill founded").

   Skill tested: Parallel Flaw · how this choice captures the argument's function is the move to repeat next time.

   69%
4. D

   Weak Evidence Match2% picked this

   The plaintiff accuses the defendant of violating campaign laws, but these accusations are ill founded. They are clearly an attempt to stir up controversy,

   This is the other variation on Ad Hominem, in which you try to invalidate someone's claim or argument by citing their biased interest. This argument is trying to invalidate the plaintiff's accusations based on the idea that the plaintiff stands to gain from making these allegations just before the election. We wanted an argument focused on conflicting past behavior not based on ulterior motives.

   2%
5. E

   Bad Evidence Match1% picked this

   The plaintiff accuses the defendant of voting only for campaign laws that would favor the defendant's party. This accusation is ill founded, however, because

   This argument is also trying to invalidate some accusations. Is it doing so by saying, "The accuser has some past behavior that is goes against what they're currently saying?" No. It's saying the accuser is attacking motives, just like (D), rather than engaging with the ideas themselves.

   1%