Self-study
Journalist: A book claiming that a new drug has dangerous side effects has recently been criticized by a prominent physician. ████████ ███ █████████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ ███████ ████ ████████████ ████ █████ ███ █████ ████████ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ ████ ████ ███ ████ ██ ██████████ ██████████ ███ ████████ ████ ███ ███████ ██████████ ███████ ██ ██████ ███ ██████ ██████ █████ ███ ██████ ████ ████████
Summarize Argument: Counter-Position
The journalist dismisses a physician’s critique of a new book because the physician is employed by the company whose drug the book claims has negative side effects.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is an ad hominem fallacy because the journalist uses the physician’s personal circumstances as grounds to dismiss his argument without actually addressing the substance of his claims. Being employed by the company doesn’t prevent the physician from giving an effective critique of the book.
12.
The reasoning in the journalist's ████████ ██ ████ ██████████ ██ █████████ ██ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ ████████
a
It fails to ███████ ██████████ ███ ███████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ ████ ██████ ████ ████████ █████ ██████ ████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ███ ████ ███ █████████ ████ ████████
This is irrelevant because the conclusion is limited to “the book’s claims about the drug’s side effects”.
b
It takes for ███████ ████ ██████ ████ ████████ ██████████ ████ █ ███████ ████ ████████████ █ ████ ██ ██████ ██ ██████ █████ ████████ ██████████ ████████ █████████ ████ ███████ ██ ████ █████
The physician is employed by the company, giving him a more direct connection than just being “remotely associated” with it. Further, the journalist says that the physician likely has personal reasons for denying the claim, not that he’s incapable of fairly weighing evidence.
c
It overlooks the ███████████ ████ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ███ ██████ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ █████ ██ ███ █████ ████ ███ ████ ███ █████████ ████ ████████
This is irrelevant because the journalist doesn’t claim that the information in the book is accurate, only that the physician’s critique should be dismissed.
d
It fails to ███████ ██████████ ███ ███████████ ████ ███████ ███ ███ ████████ ███████ ██ ████ █ █████ ███ ███████████ ███████ ██████████ ███████ ███ ███████ ████ ██████
This describes how the journalist attempts to undermine the physician’s critique by questioning his motives rather than engaging with his argument. The physician’s critique could still be effective even if he works for the company.
e
It overlooks the ███████████ ████ ████ ██ █ ████████ ████ ███ ███████ ██████████ ███████ ██ ██████ █ ██████ ████ ███████ ████ ███ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ████████ ██████ ██ ███ ███████
This is irrelevant since the journalist’s conclusion is simply that the physician’s critique fails. It doesn’t matter why it fails. If it fails for some other reason besides bias, that doesn't undermine the argument.