Bill: "I've looked over the proposal for the new small business tax rates. Based on my research, the tax rates will actually drive most local small businesses out of business. This would mean even less tax revenues for the community. I've also had an independent evaluation done and the results agree with mine."
Joe: "I've looked over your results and I must agree. I'd suggest that we vote against the tax proposal and keep our revenues stable."
Dave: "I disagree strongly! We must pass the business tax proposal. We need that money to fund the schools and the vital social programs."
Jill: "Bill makes a pretty strong case for voting against the proposal. His evidence looks solid, too."
Dave: "Yeah, right. Bill owns that book store. It is clear that he is only opposing the proposal because he owns a business that would be affected by the tax."Circumstantial Ad HominemPersonal AttackBegging the QuestionAppeal to Common PracticeCircumstantial Ad Hominem is the right answer. In this example, Bill's claim is being rejected simply because the claim is in accord with Bill's interests. However, Bill's claim appears to be well supported by evidence, hence this rejection is clearly fallacious.Personal Attack is a wrong answer. In this example, a personal attack against Bill is not being used in place of evidence. The attack on the person in this case involves the claim that Bill is biased because of his interests. In this case, Circumstantial Ad Hominem is the best choice.Begging the Question is a wrong answer. In this example, there is no appeal to premises that directly or indirectly assume that the conclusion is true.Common Practice is a wrong answer. In this example, there is no claim that a practice is justified simply because it is a common one.In this example, there does not appear to be any implicit or explicit assumption that the conclusion must already be true.1