Wrong flaw. While this commits the same cookie-cutter flaw of attacking the argument’s source, it does so in a different way than the stimulus. In (A), Smith stands to benefit from her proposal as a working parent. In the stimulus, Mullen doesn’t stand to benefit from his proposal, because he is in the group whose taxes would be raised. Therefore, (A) indicates that Smith might be biased toward her proposal, whereas the stimulus doesn’t give evidence to suggest that Mullen would be biased toward his.

This argument states that Dr. Han proposed a ban on smoking in public places. It adds that Dr. Han is a heavy smoker. Based Dr. Han’s proximity to the proposal, the argument concludes that we should not consider her proposal. Like the stimulus, this is an example of the cookie-cutter flaw of attacking the argument’s source. Also like the stimulus, the proposer of the policy doesn’t stand to benefit from the policy, but rather would suffer from its implementation, and therefore wouldn’t be biased toward the proposal based on the information given.

Wrong flaw. While this commits the same cookie-cutter flaw of attacking the argument’s source, it does so in a different way than the stimulus. The witness in (C) is not alleged to be personally biased toward or against her testimony; rather, (C) attacks her character and thereby her credibility. By contrast, the stimulus discards Mullen’s proposal because he himself would be impacted by it.

Wrong flaw. While this commits the same cookie-cutter flaw of attacking the argument’s source, it does so in a different way than the stimulus. In (D), Timm stands to benefit from her proposal. In the stimulus, Mullen doesn’t stand to benefit from his proposal, because he is in the group whose taxes would be raised. Therefore, (D) indicates that Timm might be biased toward her proposal, whereas the stimulus doesn’t give evidence to suggest that Mullen would be biased toward his.

Wrong flaw. While this commits the same cookie-cutter flaw of attacking the argument’s source, it does so in a different way than the stimulus. Dr. Wasow is not alleged to be biased toward or against any particular analysis of the bridge; rather, (E) merely attacks her design credibility. By contrast, the stimulus discards Mullen’s proposal because he himself would be impacted by it.