Mrs. gladstone's arguments against cuts in social security are worthless. as a recipient of social security benefits, she would naturally be expected to argue exactly the way she does.

a. argument against the person, circumstantial.

Question

Social Studies

Kelvin Oconnor

27 July, 05:44

Mrs. gladstone's arguments against cuts in social security are worthless. as a recipient of social security benefits, she would naturally be expected to argue exactly the way she does.

a. argument against the person, circumstantial.

+2

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Elena Lane · Answer 1

The answer to this question is Argument against the person, circumstantial

This debating technique is used to attack the opposition of the argument rather than the actual substance of the argument itself.

Even though it may be considered as unethical argument, this method is the fastest way to win the audience's favors.

Mrs. gladstone's arguments against cuts in social security are worthless. as a recipient of social security benefits, she would naturally be expected to argue exactly the way she does.a. argument against the person, circumstantial.

Mrs. gladstone's arguments against cuts in social security are worthless. as a recipient of social security benefits, she would naturally be expected to argue exactly the way she does.

a. argument against the person, circumstantial.