In a debate focused specifically on the topic of whether new laws are needed to prevent distracted driving, the following argument is made. which type of special appeal does it demonstrate? “my opponent is correct—distracted driving is very dangerous. many activities—texting, talking on the phone, looking at maps, eating breakfast—all of these contribute to accidents. yes, we have statistics to support that. however, my opponent is totally ignoring the role that improper and inconsistent maintenance of your vehicle can also have in causing accidents! ” a. false analogy b. red herring c. bandwagon d. fallacy of argument from ignorance

The type of special appeal the argument demonstrates is a): false analogy.

A false analogy is an informal fallacy, it applies to inductive arguments, like the one in this excerpt. It is an informal fallacy because the error is about what the argument is about, and not the argument itself.

The argument given by the opponent is a valid argument, but it is wrong in the context since the debate is focused specifically on the topic of whether new laws are needed to prevent distracted driving, not on every action that causes driving accidents. It would be valid in other debate, but not in this one, although the subject "driving accidents" is common on both.

um, what am i suppose to answer here? it just said that he will studied hared because of a grade in spanish.

why did you delete the answer?