ATTACKING THE MOTIVE

An arguer criticizes a person’s motivation for offering a particular argument or claim, rather than examining

the worth of the argument or claim itself.

a) X is biased or has questionable motives. b) X’s argument or claim should be rejected.

Formula

Example

1. (a) Kamal claims that LUMS is the best Business school in Pakistan. But why should we listen to him? (b) Being a LUMS student, of course he would say that!

2. (a) The Judges who were removed for not taking the second PCO oath are agitating to reinstall the deposed Chief Justice Ifkihar. (b) But why should we listen to the judges? Of course they would say that because when he’s reinstalled, he would reinstate them as well.

BUT! NOT all attacks on arguer’s motives are fallacious

• ‘Burton Wexler, spokesperson for the American Tobacco Growers Association, has argued that there is no credible scientific evidence that cigarette smoking causes cancer. Given Wexler’s obvious bias in the matter, his arguments should be taken with a grain of salt.’