Q4 - The country is presently debating legislation

[dahee.suh]

I understand that the flaw of the argument is "ad hominem", yet I had to think a bit between (A) and (B) before arriving at the correct answer (B)

answer choice:
(A) attacks legislation by calling into question the integrity of the originators of the legislation

(B) assails legislation on the basis of the questionable character of supporters of the legislation

I wanted to see if I could pinpoint the reason why A is incorrect.

(A) seems to be wrong because of the word "originators" . We don't know if the supporters mentioned in the stimulus are the originators. I think that the usage of the word "integrity" is fine because in the stimulus premise, "resorting to violent tactics" and "tax evasion charges" are issues related to integrity.

So, my question is, if (A) replaced the word "originators" with "supporters", then would (A) be a correct answer? Or am I missing a bigger flaw with answer (A)?

Thanks in advance

[dexterdowns]

the core of the argument is as follows:
P: this legislation is being supported by members of a group that have resorted to violent tactics in the past, and by individuals who are facing indictment on tax-evasion charges (in essence its saying that bad people are supporting this legislation).
C: we must defeat this legislation and what it stands for. (we must reject it because OF the types of people who support it).


As I evaluated the argument I chuckled because the author is saying that the reason we must reject it is because bad people are supporting, even so we can reject it because the author hasn't discussed the legislation and why because of those reasons we must reject it.

A. The reason I eliminated this one was because the argument never talks about "originators of the legislation"
B. Correct answer because it describes the ad hominem in the core.
C. Its way out of scope because the core never makes an appeal to public sentiment.
D. Irrelevant
E. Out of scope because the core of the argument never address the burden that would be placed on the manufacturers.

[rinagoldfield]

(A) seems to be wrong because of the word "originators" . We don't know if the supporters mentioned in the stimulus are the originators. I think that the usage of the word "integrity" is fine because in the stimulus premise, "resorting to violent tactics" and "tax evasion charges" are issues related to integrity.

So, my question is, if (A) replaced the word "originators" with "supporters", then would (A) be a correct answer? Or am I missing a bigger flaw with answer (A)?

Boom, I agree Dahee.suh! The flaw lies in "originators." I don't see another issue with (A).

[obobob]

Is the answer choice (E) basically saying that the argument is flawed as the supporters of the claim are acting inconsistently by blaming manufacturers for their business success while their success really depends on the supporters?

If so, how are the supporters acting inconsistently?

[ohthatpatrick]

Let's say there was a law that would force Walmart to pay its employees $15/hr.

And let's say some of the people supporting this law are people with many shares of Walmart stock.

(E) would sound like this:

Columnist: The country is presently debating legislation that, if passed, would force Walmart to raise its minimum wage, significantly cutting down on the profitability of Walmart's corporate earnings. This legislation is being supported by members of groups whose primary source of income comes from significant stock holdings in Walmart, which would be negatively impacted by a decrease in Walmart's earnings. Thus, we must defeat this legislation.

Some author would be shooting down legislation by saying that people who support the legislation would be indirectly harmed by the effects of that legislation.