Flaw

The argument dismisses the policy solely because its critics oppose it, attacking the source rather than the policy's content, which is the textbook definition of an ad hominem or appeal to opposition. Choice A is wrong because the argument never cites any expert authority; it merely rejects the policy on the basis of who opposes it, not because an authority endorses it.

The argument incorrectly assumes that a statistical correlation between coffee consumption and longevity proves a direct causal relationship, ignoring potential confounding variables. Option D is incorrect because even if longevity is difficult to measure, it does not represent the primary logical flaw of confusing correlation with causation.

The syllogism's conclusion is false because its major premise, 'All birds can fly,' is factually incorrect since flightless birds like penguins exist. A diagram for this topic isn't available yet — the worked example below walks the same reasoning step by step.

• !The syllogism's conclusion is false because its major premise, 'All birds can fly,' is factually incorrect since flightless birds like penguins exist.
• !Option D is incorrect because even if longevity is difficult to measure, it does not represent the primary logical flaw of confusing correlation with causation.
• !Option A is incorrect because the premise does not presuppose the conclusion, meaning it is not circular.
• !Option B is incorrect because hasty generalizations involve drawing conclusions from an unrepresentative or too-small sample size, which is not the primary issue here.
• !Choice A is wrong because the argument never cites any expert authority; it merely rejects the policy on the basis of who opposes it, not because an authority endorses it.

Answer each from memory — you'll see instantly whether you're right and why.

Run a focused 10-question mini-mock on Flaw and see it stick.