Self-study
Party X has recently been accused by its opposition, Party Y, of accepting international campaign contributions, which is illegal. Such accusations are, however, ill founded. Three years ago, Party Y itself was involved in a scandal in which it was discovered that its national committee seriously violated campaign laws.
7.
Which one of the following contains flawed reasoning most similar to the flawed reasoning in the argument above?
a
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 are not immoral, because the laws in question are unjust.
Wrong flaw. This argument is unsupported because the plaintiff’s accusation deals only with whether or not the defendant violated campaign laws, and the author only supported their conclusion by saying that the defendant’s actions were not immoral, which has nothing to do with the accusation. This argument contains no ad hominem attack like the stimulus does.
b
The plaintiff accuses the defendant of violating campaign laws, but these accusations show the plaintiff to be hypocritical, because the plaintiff has engaged in similar conduct.
No flaw. The argument in this answer choice is correct in describing a plaintiff complaining of a defendant’s actions that the plaintiff once undertook themselves as a hypocrite.
c
The plaintiff accuses the defendant of violating campaign laws, and, in the past, courts have declared such violations illegal. Nevertheless, because the plaintiff recently engaged in actions that were similar to those of the defendant, the plaintiff's accusations are ill founded.
This answer choice commits the cookie-cutter flaw of attacking the source of the argument, rather than the argument itself. Saying that the defendant did not violate any laws because the plaintiff once violated similar laws is not a valid argument. The author of this answer choice should have addressed the merits of the plaintiff’s argument in order to support his conclusion that the plaintiff is wrong about the defendant’s actions.
d
The plaintiff accuses the defendant of violating campaign laws, but these accusations are ill founded. They are clearly an attempt to stir up controversy, because they were made just two weeks before the election.
Wrong flaw. This answer choice is flawed because it attacks the plaintiff’s motives for accusing the defendant, not the plaintiff’s actual argument. There is nothing in this answer choice that is parallel to the stimulus’s ad hominem attack against Party Y.
e
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 it attacks the defendant's motivations instead of addressing the arguments the defendant has put forth justifying these votes.
Wrong flaw. Whether the defendant had a good reason to vote for these laws or was only motivated to vote for these laws for the benefit of their own party does not matter to the plaintiff’s accusation. The defendant can have voted only for laws that benefit his party with or without good justification. This differs from the stimulus because there is no ad hominem attack present in this argument as there was in the stimulus.