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.

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.

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.

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.

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.