The arguer offers two options： either restrict freedom of speech， or lose th

　　e country. He hopes the reader will assume that these are the only options a

　　vailable. This is unwarranted. He does not state how the so-called “subversi

　　ve elements“ would destroy the country， nor for that matter， why they would

　　want to destroy it. There may be a third option that the author did not ment

　　ion； namely， that society may be able to tolerate the “subversives” and it m

　　ay even be improved by the diversity of opinion they offer. The answer is （C

　　）。

　　Appeal To Authority

　　To appeal to authority is to cite an expert's opinion as support for one's o

　　wn opinion. This method of thought is not necessarily fallacious. Clearly， t

　　he reasonableness of the argument depends on the “expertise” of the person b

　　eing cited and whether she is an expert in a field relevant to the argument.

　　Appealing to a doctor's authority on a medical issue， for example， would be

　　reasonable； but if the issue is about dermatology and the doctor is an orth

　　opedist， then the argument would be questionable.

　　Personal Attack

　　In a personal attack （ad hominem）， a person's character is challenged instea

　　d of her opinions.

　　Example：

　　Politician： How can we trust my opponent to be true to the voters？ He isn't

　　true to his wife！

　　This argument is weak because it attacks the opponent's character， not his p

　　ositions. Some people may consider fidelity a prerequisite for public office

　　…… History， however， shows no correlation between fidelity and great politica

　　l leadership.

　　——

　　I would fly you to the moon and back

　　If you'll be if you'll be my baby

　　Got a ticket for a worldswhereswe belong

　　So would you be my baby