Question

read the passage from a debate speech.
the current trade situation in this nation is unacceptable. we continue to lose money to other nations, while those nations prosper. i have a detailed plan to get our country—and its people—back on the right track. my opponent, who uses her time to spread lies and rumors while eating nice dinners bought by you taxpayers, does not even have a plan. i question her priorities.
which statement best explains why the evidence provided in the text is a fallacy?
○ the speaker uses anecdotal evidence with phrases like “back on the right track.”
○ the speaker uses a bandwagon statement by complaining that other nations prosper.
○ the speaker uses an ad hominem argument by attacking an opponent’s honesty.
○ the speaker uses a false dilemma by claiming to have the ideal plan.

Explanation:

An ad hominem fallacy involves attacking an opponent's character or personal traits instead of addressing their argument. Here, the speaker avoids engaging with the opponent's position and instead attacks their honesty (calling their claims "lies and rumors") and personal behavior (eating taxpayer-funded dinners) to discredit them, rather than focusing on the trade plan debate. The other options do not fit: there is no anecdotal evidence tied to "back on the right track," no bandwagon appeal (urging others to follow a popular position), and no false dilemma (presenting only two extreme options).

Answer:

C. The speaker uses an ad hominem argument by attacking an opponent's honesty.