Legislator: My colleague says we should reject this act because it would deter investment.
Conclusion
We should vote to approve the act.
Intermediate Conclusion
Her real reason for opposing must not be very persuasive.
Intermediate Conclusion
She has not revealed her real reason.
Evidence
She says the act would deter investment, but in the past she's voted for legislation that inhibited investment.
Evaluate
When an author tries to dismiss an argument because the source of the argument either has a biased interest or because the source of the argument has conflicting past behavior, that's the famous flaw known as Ad Hominem.
This author says, .
That's flawed thinking for a couple reasons - People are allowed to change. People can learn from their mistakes. Maybe this woman has learned that it was a mistake for her in the past to have voted for something that inhibited investment.
- Deciding to vote for / against something is a complicated calculus. You might vote for something that inhibits investment in spite of the fact that it inhibits investment, because something else outweighs it.
Any politician who voted for $2 trillion of COVID-relief voted for legislation that will greatly increase the national deficit. Does that mean that any time in the future of they object to legislation because it increases the deficit that we can say, ?
Of course not. Sometimes you accept a negative part of something because the good / necessary parts outweigh the negative.
That famous flaw is happening in the move from Premise to Intermediate Conclusion. We have another famous flaw occurring in the move from Intermediate Conclusion to Main Conclusion.
The author is acting like . But wait a sec -- has the author presented any evidence in favor of approving the act?
Just because the colleague failed to prove the act should be rejected doesn't mean that the author has proven that the act should be approved. This is the famous flaw Unproven vs. Proven False.
Goal
Look for an answer calling out the Ad Hominem flaw, saying
Or look for an answer calling out the Unproven vs. Proven False flaw, saying