In the scenario you described, Candidate B's response to Candidate A—making fun of Candidate A's shoes—does not address the actual argument about tourism and its potential economic benefits. Instead, it shifts the focus to a personal attack, which is characteristic of the ad hominem fallacy.
Here's a breakdown of the statements you provided:
-
Candidate B's position on tourism and the economy becomes clear to the audience. - This is misleading; Candidate B's response does not clarify their position on tourism; rather, it avoids the issue.
-
Candidate B makes a valid argument against Candidate A's position. - This statement is incorrect; making fun of Candidate A's shoes does not constitute a valid argument against their proposal on tourism.
-
Candidate B is using the ad hominem fallacy to divert attention away from the actual issue. - This is accurate; by attacking Candidate A personally, Candidate B avoids addressing the topic of tourism and its economic implications.
-
Candidate A is using the ad hominem fallacy to attack Candidate B. - This statement does not apply to the scenario provided. Candidate A is discussing a policy (tourism), not attacking Candidate B personally.
In summary, Candidate B's response represents an ad hominem fallacy, as it diverts attention from the policy discussion to a personal jab.