Read part of a letter, published in a newspaper, from a citizen who opposed a plan to cut down diseased trees in a local park.

Question

Those trees have provided pleasant shade to generations of folks. The notice on the trees said that they had black-spot disease. But can this town really trust the same parks department that won't replace the dangerous bridge in Bell Park? How can a regular person really tell if the trees have black-spot disease? They look healthy to me, and I am in the park every day.

How sound is the citizen's reasoning in this part of the letter?

Responses

The reasoning is not very sound, because the citizen uses ad hominem to attack the parks department.
The reasoning is not very sound, because the citizen uses ad hominem to attack the parks department.

The reasoning is not very sound, because the citizen makes a logical connection that focuses more on the trees than on the bridge.
The reasoning is not very sound, because the citizen makes a logical connection that focuses more on the trees than on the bridge.

The reasoning is sound, because the citizen offers sufficient evidence against the opposing view of the claim.
The reasoning is sound, because the citizen offers sufficient evidence against the opposing view of the claim.

The reasoning is sound, because the citizen provides evidence in the form of expert advice and stories.

Answer 1

The reasoning is not very sound, because the citizen uses ad hominem to attack the parks department.

The citizen's argument primarily critiques the credibility of the parks department instead of directly addressing the issue of whether the trees truly have black-spot disease. This line of reasoning relies on an attack on the department's past performance to undermine its current claims, which is not a valid way to assess the health of the trees. Without addressing the evidence or expertise about the disease itself, the argument lacks a solid foundation.