For years, we’ve watched Politician A tell blatant lies, use loopholes for personal gain, and mislead voters about their character. Today, Politician B announced that an accounting error in last year’s taxes led to an unintentional misfiling. Clearly, these politicians cannot be trusted. They are all the same, and we need to replace them immediately.
Why does this statement qualify as a type of fallacious reasoning?
(1 point)
Responses
It supports a claim by restating the claim instead of giving evidence to prove it.
It supports a claim by restating the claim instead of giving evidence to prove it.
It makes an illogical jump that one thing will lead to a disastrous outcome through a series of consequences.
It makes an illogical jump that one thing will lead to a disastrous outcome through a series of consequences.
It distorts evidence by suggesting that it means something it does not actually mean.
It distorts evidence by suggesting that it means something it does not actually mean.
It oversimplifies or misrepresents an opposing argument in order to attack it.
1 answer
The correct response is:
It oversimplifies or misrepresents an opposing argument in order to attack it.
This statement implies that because Politician A has lied and Politician B has made an accounting error, both politicians cannot be trusted, which is an oversimplification that ignores any nuance in the situations or the characters of the politicians.
