This document discusses the ad hominem fallacy, which is when someone attacks an argument by attacking the person making it rather than addressing the substance of the argument. It provides examples of ad hominem fallacies, such as criticizing someone's appearance or qualifications rather than the merits of their argument. The document emphasizes that readers should evaluate the strength of the evidence and reasoning instead of focusing on irrelevant personal characteristics of the author. It also includes sample discussion questions to help identify ad hominem reasoning.

1. Logical Fallacies: Ad Hominem

2. The Ad Hominem Fallacy
A Common Core Lesson
By
Dean Berry, Ed. D.
Gregg Berry, B. A.
Common Core Curriculum Solutions
www.commoncorecurriculum.info

3. Common Core Reading Standards
Delineate and evaluate the argument and
specific claims in a text, assessing whether
the reasoning is sound and the evidence is
relevant and sufficient; recognize when
irrelevant evidence is introduced.

4. Common Core Speaking
and Listening Standards
Engage effectively in a range of
collaborative discussions (one-on-
one, in groups, and teacher-led) with
diverse partners on topics, texts,
and issues, building on others’ ideas
and expressing their own clearly.

5. Common Core Speaking
and Listening Standards
Delineate a speaker’s argument
and specific claims, evaluating
the soundness of the reasoning
and relevance and sufficiency of
the evidence and identifying when
irrelevant evidence is introduced.

6. Reading with Your Eyes and Your Brain
Skillful readers learn how to read persuasive or
opinionated text with a very critical eye. They
realize that the author’s purpose is to convince the
reader to believe what the author is saying and to
consider the arguments given as valid even if they
violate logical reasoning and lack supporting
evidence. The author’s motive may be to get the
reader to buy something, vote a certain way,
change an attitude, or behave differently.

7. • In order to avoid manipulation by the author,
good readers learn how to detect poor
reasoning and faulty arguments. They are
able to identify the various logical fallacies
such as begging the question, strawman,
overgeneralization, slippery slope, and
others. During this lesson, we will study
logical fallacies.

8. In order for an argument to present a strong,
logical position, specific evidence and
examples need to be provided.

9. Some authors use personal attacks on their
opponent in order to divert attention away
from issues that really matter.

10. The Personal Attack Fallacy
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in
which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of
some irrelevant fact about the person presenting the
claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two
steps. First, the character of the person making the
claim is attacked. Second, this attack is taken to be
evidence against the argument or claim the person in
question is making.

11. Aggression and personal attacks
are sometimes used to discredit
an opponents position on an issue.

12. How Does the Ad Hominem Fallacy Work?
A DOCTOR tells her patient to lose weight, and the
patient thinks: “If my doctor really believed that,
she wouldn’t be so fat.” A movie aficionado pans
the latest Tom Cruise flick because Cruise is a
Scientologist. A homeowner ignores a neighbor’s
advice on lawn care because the neighbor is a ...
you name it: Democrat, Republican, Christian or
atheist. These examples illustrate classic uses of
ad hominem attacks, in which an argument is
rejected, or advanced, based on a personal
characteristic of an individual rather than on
reasons for or against the claim itself.

13. Let’s Take a Closer Look
Putting the focus on the arguer or person being
discussed can distract us from the issues that
matter. Rather than concentrating on an
individual’s character, we should, in these
cases, be asking ourselves questions such as,
Is the doctor’s advice medically sound? Is the
Cruise film entertaining? Is the neighbor’s lawn
healthy? After all, determining the facts and
evidence that leads us to the truth is what
should matter.

14. Avoiding the real argument by
getting aggressive and personal

15. The Strategy of Personal Attack
Attack the person in some way.
For example:
• Attack their expertise, questioning their qualifications
or experience
• Criticize their physical appearance or dress
• Comment on their inability to make a good argument
• Point out their junior or lower status
• Attack their values as being contrary to social norms
• Attack those who support them or agree with them

16. Examples of the Ad Hominem Fallacy

17. Avoiding the Real Issue

18. How could you possibly know
anything about this issue???
Use of marital status to invalidate an
opinion of someone of a different status,
e.g., “How can you make a decision
about someone having marital problems
if you’ve never been married yourself?”
Using gender as a means to devalue an
argument from an opposing gender, e.g.,
“This is a female issue. As a man, how
can you have an opinion about this?”

19. Attacking your opponent rather than
the issue is a diversionary tactic

20. Who Cares About the Real Issues?

21. Is this an Ad Hominem Fallacy?
The student gets a low grade and tells
his parent, “Well, it’s not like she
graduated from the best school, so I can
see why she wouldn’t know how to
properly grade a writing assignment.”
Go to the Next Frame

22. Pair Share
Turn to your neighbor and discuss
your answer to this question.
The student gets a low grade and tells
his parent, “Well, it’s not like she
graduated from the best school, so I
can see why she wouldn’t know how to
properly grade a writing assignment.”

23. Is this an Ad Hominem Fallacy?
“How can you argue your case for
vegetarianism when you are enjoying
your steak?”

24. Pair Share
Turn to your neighbor and discuss
your answer to this question.
“How can you argue your case for
vegetarianism when you are
enjoying your steak?”

25. Is this an Ad Hominem Fallacy?
Your solution, which is totally
irresponsible, will be a disaster that
could damage our country by adding
millions of pounds of pollution to the air
we breathe.

26. Pair Share
Turn to your neighbor and discuss
your answer to this question.
Your solution, which is totally
irresponsible, will be a disaster that
could damage our country by adding
millions of pounds of pollution to the air
we breathe.

27. Is this an Ad Hominem Fallacy?
We cannot approve of this recycling
idea. It was thought of by a bunch of
hippie communist weirdos.
Go to the Next Frame

28. Pair Share
Turn to your neighbor and discuss
your answer to this question.
•We cannot approve of this recycling
idea. It was thought of by a bunch
of hippie communist weirdos.

29. Is this an Ad Hominem Fallacy?
Using someone’s educational level as a
means to make an argument, “You didn’t
even finish high school - how could you
possibly know about this?”

30. Pair Share
Turn to your neighbor and discuss
your answer to this question.
Using someone’s educational level as a
means to make an argument, “You didn’t even
finish high school - how could you possibly
know about this?”

31. Is this an Ad Hominem Fallacy?
Relying on socioeconomic status as a means
to undermine an opposing individual’s
opinion, such as, “You wouldn’t understand
since you have never had to struggle."
Go to the Next Frame
•

32. Pair Share
Turn to your neighbor and discuss
your answer to this question.
Relying on socioeconomic status as a
means to undermine an opposing
individual’s opinion, such as, “You
wouldn’t understand since you have
never had to struggle."

33. Is this an Ad Hominem Fallacy?
People who inflict pain on animals are
pathetic individuals because they fail to
understand the suffering that animals go
through. These people should be arrested
for their brutal behavior.

34. Pair Share
Turn to your neighbor and discuss
your answer to this question.
People who inflict pain on animals are
pathetic individuals because they fail to
understand the suffering that animas go
through. These people should be arrested for
their brutal behavior.

35. Additional Common Core
Standards Covered

36. Reading Standards
Cite the textual evidence that
most strongly supports an
analysis of what the text says
explicitly as well as inferences
drawn from the text.

37. Writing Standards
Use words, phrases, and
clauses to create cohesion and
clarify the relationships among
claim(s), counterclaims,
reasons, and evidence.

38. 38
Copyright Protected © 2015 Dean R. Berry
All Rights Reserved
No part of this document may be reproduced without written
permission from the author