The fallacy occurs when one attacks the motivation of an arguer, instead of the argument that the arguer presents.

Let’s examine the following example:

What follows is a summary of the arguments in the video:

IT support: All workers in our warehouse should switch to Mac computers because Macs are more userfriendly.

Supervisor: I know Macs will make your job easier, but I do not think that we should make the switch.


Let’s analyze the arguments. You have two attempts to complete each item.

* 1. What is the IT support’s claim? (Please select the best answer.)

  A. Macs are more user-friendly.

  B. All workers in the warehouse should switch to Mac computers.

  C. The low-maintenance Macs will certainly make the IT support’s job easier.



* 2. What is the reason that the IT support uses to support his position? (Please select the best answer.)

  A. Macs are more user-friendly.

  B. All workers in the warehouse should switch to Mac computers.

  C. The low-maintenance Macs will make the IT support’s job easier.



* 3. What is the reason that the supervisor uses in an attempt to invalidate the IT support’s argument? (Please select the best answer.)

  A. Macs are more user-friendly.

  B. All workers in the warehouse should switch to Mac computers.

  C. The low-maintenance Macs will make the IT support’s job easier.



Let’s review the IT support’s argument and present it in standard format:

  Premise/ reason: Macs are more user-friendly.

  Claim/ position: All workers in the warehouse should switch to Mac computers.

In the refutation, the supervisor should have addressed the reason about Macs’ user-friendliness, not the IT support’s motive, which is irrelevant to the argument.