Columnist: The country is presently debating legislation that, if passed, would force manufacturers to increase the number of paid vacation days for employees, to pay higher overtime wages, and to pay all day-care expenses for children of each employee. ████ ███████████ ██ █████ █████████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████ ████ ████ ████████ ██ ███████ ███████ ██ ███ █████ ███ ██ ███████████ ███ ███ ██████ ██████████ ██ ███████████ ████████ ██ ████ ██████ ████ ███████████ ███ ████ ██ ██████ ████
The columnist concludes that we must defeat a piece of legislation that would improve workers’ rights. Why? Because some supporters of the legislation belong to unsavory groups, or are facing tax-eviction charges.
This is a cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where the argument attacks the source of a position rather than the position itself. In this case, the columnist is casting doubt on the character of the legislation’s supporters, instead of addressing the merits of the legislation.
The columnist's argument is flawed ███████ ██
attacks legislation by ███████ ████ ████████ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ███████████ ██ ███ ███████████
assails legislation on ███ █████ ██ ███ ████████████ █████████ ██ ██████████ ██ ███ ███████████
attempts to discredit ███████████ ██ █████████ ██ ██████ █████████ ███ █████ ███ █████ ██ █████████ ████████
presupposes that legislation ██ ███ ███████████ ████████ ██ ███ ████ █ █████ ██████ ██ ██████████ ███████ ███ █████████ ████████ ███████████ ████
rejects legislation on ███ ███████ ████ ███ ██████████ ███ ██████████████ ██ ███████ ██ █████ ███████ ██ █████████████ ████ █████ ████████ ███████ ███ ██████████ ██████