Ask a New Question
Menu

When Candidate A tries to promote tourism as a means to grow the economy, and Candidate B responds by making fun of Candidate A's shoes...

tts Icon

Candidate B makes a valid argument against Candidate A's position.
tts Icon

Candidate B's position on tourism and the economy becomes clear to the audience.
tts Icon

Candidate A is using the ad hominem fallacy to attack Candidate B.
tts Icon

Candidate B is using the ad hominem fallacy to divert attention away from the actual issue.
tts Icon

1 answer

In this exchange, Candidate B's response focuses on mocking Candidate A's shoes instead of addressing the argument about tourism and economic growth. This can be analyzed through the lens of logical fallacies:

  1. Ad Hominem Fallacy: Candidate B's approach exemplifies the ad hominem fallacy, where he attacks Candidate A personally rather than engaging with the merits of the tourism argument. This means Candidate B is diverting attention from the topic at hand.

  2. Candidate A's Approach: If Candidate A were to respond to Candidate B's personal attack rather than maintaining the focus on the economic benefits of tourism, Candidate A might also fall into an ad hominem fallacy, but in this scenario, the focus is primarily on Candidate B's argument.

  3. Invalid Argument: By not addressing the core issue (the impact of tourism on the economy), Candidate B's critique lacks substance and does not effectively counter Candidate A's proposal.

In summary, Candidate B is using the ad hominem fallacy to distract from the real discussion about tourism and its potential economic benefits, and his position regarding tourism remains unclear as he does not provide any substantive argument against Candidate A's point.