Subscription pricing
In his new book on his complex scientific research, Support R frequently imputes bad faith to researchers disagreeing with him. █ █████████ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ███ ██████ ██████████ ████ █████ ██████████████ ███████ ███████ █████ █████████ ████ ██████████ █████ █████████████ ███████ ███ ██ ████ ████ █ ███ █████ █████ ███████ ██ ██ █████████ ██████ ██████████ ███ █████████ █████ ██████ ███ ██ ███████ █████ ████ ███ ████ ████ ███ █████ █████████ ████ ███████ ██████████████
Summarize Argument
The author of the book review concludes that R’s book doesn’t deserve attention from serious professionals because R frequently attributes bad faith to his critics, R believes that investigators’ funding sources determine what types of “findings” they report, and R often acts arrogant, overly ambitious, and nasty.
Identify and Describe Flaw
This is a cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where the author attacks the person making an argument instead of the argument itself. In this instance, the author of the book review says that R’s book doesn’t merit attention from serious professionals because R is an unpleasant person who accuses his critics of bad things. Rather than attempting to point out issues with R’s book, the author just points out issues with R.
1.
The author of the book ██████ ███████ █████ ███ ██ ███ █████████ █████████ ███████
a
using an attack ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███ ██████ ██ ███ ████ ██ ████████ ████ ████ ██████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ ███████ ██ ██████████ █████████
b
taking it for ███████ ████ ██ ████████████ ██ ████████ ██ ██████ ████████ ████ ███ ████████ ██ ███ █████████ ██ █████ ███████ ███ █████████████
c
dismissing a scientific ██████ ██ ██████ █ ██████ ███████ ██ ██
d
presenting as facts ███████ ██████████ █████ ███ ████ █████ ██████ ████ ███ █████ ████ ██ ██████ ██████████ ███ █████ ██ ██████████ ███ ██████ ██ ██████
e
failing to distinguish ███████ ███ ████████ ██ █████ ████ ███ ██ █████ ████████████ ███████████ ██ █████ █████████