Which term describes a method of analyzing arguments that relies on credibility rather than evidence?

Which term describes a method of analyzing arguments that relies on credibility rather than evidence?

• A. Fallacy
• B. False analogy
• C. Discriminative listening
• D. Ethical "personal" appeal

Answer: (D)

This is about persuasive appeals, specifically an ethical appeal. In argumentation, ethos refers to credibility or character as a way to convince. When someone relies on their own authority, reputation, or virtue instead of presenting evidence, they’re making an ethical appeal to trust rather than to facts or data. The phrase “ethical 'personal' appeal” captures that idea, since it centers on the speaker’s credibility rather than on the argument’s supporting evidence. The other terms don’t fit because a fallacy is a flawed reasoning pattern, a false analogy is a faulty comparison, and discriminative listening is a listening skill about evaluating messages, not a method of persuasion based on credibility.

This is about persuasive appeals, specifically an ethical appeal. In argumentation, ethos refers to credibility or character as a way to convince. When someone relies on their own authority, reputation, or virtue instead of presenting evidence, they’re making an ethical appeal to trust rather than to facts or data. The phrase “ethical 'personal' appeal” captures that idea, since it centers on the speaker’s credibility rather than on the argument’s supporting evidence. The other terms don’t fit because a fallacy is a flawed reasoning pattern, a false analogy is a faulty comparison, and discriminative listening is a listening skill about evaluating messages, not a method of persuasion based on credibility.