PT6 · S2 · Q14 Joshua Smith’s new novel was

Bad Evidence Match Famous Flaw Bait: Ad Hominem This describes a variation of the Ad Hominem flaw, in which an author dismisses a view because the SOURCE of the view is someone with an ulterior motive or questionable past behavior. Our author is dismissing a view, but the evidence has nothing to do with talking about The Daily Standard, the source of that view. It has to do with the plausibility of each incident in Smith's novel. This answer is trying to bait people into caring about the phrase "like so many other criticisms from the same source in the past". That was just an aside squashed into the conclusion. That wasn't actually a premise the author relied on. It would be too strong to accuse this author assuming that "any time someone has used question judgment in the past, you can dismiss any criticism they're making."

Answers that start with fails to consider / ignores the possibility can be assessed like Weaken answers. Does it weaken if we say that people can agree about something, even if it's untrue? No, because the author was never saying "any time people agree about something, it's true". This answer is just baiting people into caring about the phrase "as anyone who has actually read the novel would agree", but that was a meaningless flourish. This answer would be attacking the validity of the premise, rather than attacking the reasoning (the way the evidence fails to prove the conclusion).

Bad Evidence Match Famous Flaw Bait: Ad Hominem Just like (A), this accuses the argument of an Ad Hominem move, where the argument focuses on the SOURCE of criticism rather than the criticism itself. But the author does address the criticism on its merits, by arguing that each incident is plausible.

This describes circular reasoning; citing reasons that only work if you already accept the conclusion. The author here does not do that. You can agree that each incident in the story is plausible without having to be convinced that the novel overall is plausible.