Question

read the passage from a debate speech.
the current trade situation in this nation is unacceptable. we continue to lose money to other nations, while those nations prosper. i have a detailed plan to get our country—and its people—back on the right track. my opponent, who uses her time to spread lies and rumors while eating nice dinners bought by you taxpayers, does not even have a plan. i question her priorities.
which statement best explains why the evidence provided in the text is a fallacy?
○ the speaker uses anecdotal evidence with phrases like \back on the right track.\
○ the speaker uses a bandwagon statement by complaining that other nations prosper.
○ the speaker uses an ad hominem argument by attacking an opponent’s honesty.
○ the speaker uses a false dilemma by claiming to have the ideal plan.

Explanation:

• For the first option: Anecdotal evidence is personal stories, but “back on the right track” is a slogan, not anecdotal. So this is incorrect.
• For the second option: A bandwagon statement appeals to popularity, but the speaker is complaining about other nations, not using bandwagon. So this is incorrect.
• For the third option: Ad hominem is attacking the opponent's character instead of addressing the argument. The speaker attacks the opponent's honesty (spreading lies) and priorities (eating taxpayer - bought dinners) instead of debating the trade plan. This fits.
• For the fourth option: A false dilemma presents only two options, but the speaker claims to have the ideal plan, which is not a false dilemma. So this is incorrect.

Answer:

C. The speaker uses an ad hominem argument by attacking an opponent’s honesty.