Council president: Councilmember Smith has

Answer choices

1. A

   Correct79% picked this

   dismisses the proposed ordinance because of its source rather than because

   Why this is right

   This answer precisely identifies the argument's flaw. The council president dismisses the proposed ordinance entirely because of who proposed it — Smith, a former bait-and-switch practitioner — rather than because of any problem with the ordinance itself. The merits of a proposal are logically independent of the personal history of its author. Smith's past use of bait-and-switch might make him a hypocrite, but it says nothing about whether the ordinance is well-crafted, enforceable, or beneficial to consumers. By attacking the source rather than the content, the president avoids engaging with the substance of the proposal entirely. This is a classic ad hominem fallacy: the argument treats biographical information about the proposer as grounds for rejecting the proposition.

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

   79%
2. B

   Bad Conclusion Match17% picked this

   takes a single fact that is incompatible with a claim as enough to show that

   This answer describes using a single incompatible fact to dismiss a claim as false. But the argument does not work that way. The president is not identifying a fact that contradicts the ordinance and using it to prove the ordinance is wrong. Instead, the president is using a fact about Smith's personal history to dismiss the ordinance without evaluating it. The distinction matters: the incompatibility described in this answer would be between evidence and the claim being evaluated, but here the "evidence" (Smith's history) has no logical bearing on the claim (the ordinance's merit). Even if an argument did use a single incompatible fact to reject a claim, that is not inherently fallacious. A single counterexample can legitimately refute a universal claim. The flaw described here — relying on one piece of contradictory evidence — is a valid form of reasoning in many contexts, not a logical error. The actual flaw in the argument is ad hominem reasoning, not insufficient evidence against the proposal.

   17%
3. C

   Not Our Objection2% picked this

   fails to make a needed distinction between deceptive sales tactics and legitimate methods

   This answer suggests the argument fails to distinguish between deceptive and legitimate sales tactics. While such a distinction could theoretically be relevant to a discussion about regulating sales practices, it does not describe the actual flaw in this argument. The president never discusses the substance of sales tactics at all — the president never addresses what the ordinance would prohibit or whether bait-and-switch is appropriately classified. The entire argument operates at the level of "who proposed it" rather than "what it proposes." The fundamental flaw is the ad hominem attack on Smith, not a failure to make nuanced distinctions about different types of sales tactics.

   2%
4. D

   Not Circular1% picked this

   draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim presented in support

   Circular reasoning occurs when the conclusion simply restates one of its own premises — when the argument assumes what it is trying to prove. For this to apply, the president's conclusion (the ordinance does not merit consideration) would need to be the same as one of the premises. But the premise is that Smith used bait-and-switch four years ago, and the conclusion is that his ordinance should be dismissed. These are different claims. The argument may be invalid (because the premise is irrelevant to the conclusion), but it is not circular — it does not assume its own conclusion. Circular arguments at least have the right kind of connection between premise and conclusion; this argument's problem is the wrong kind of connection entirely.

   1%
5. E

   Not Sampling1% picked this

   generalizes from a limited number of instances of a certain kind to all instances

   A sampling or generalization flaw occurs when a conclusion about a broader category is drawn from an unrepresentative or insufficient sample. The president is not generalizing from instances at all. The argument does not say "Smith's store used bait-and-switch and was bad, therefore all bait-and-switch is bad" or "one case proves a pattern." The president's reasoning is entirely about Smith as an individual and his relationship to the ordinance he proposed. The flaw is about the type of evidence used (biographical rather than substantive), not about the quantity of instances examined. No sampling, surveying, or generalizing is involved in the argument.

   1%