🏠 Home
Tests
Practice
Writing
Ad Hominem Writing Exercises: Level B2-C1 (with Answers)

✍️

B2
C1
Writing

Ad Hominem Writing Exercises: Level B2-C1 (with Answers)

15questions

7:30minutes

+19XP on pass

Track your Ad Hominem progress with 15 exercises at Level B2-C1. Take the quiz today, note your score, and retake it next week to see how much you have improved. Every question includes a full explanation so each attempt teaches you something new.

Review the lesson first

⏱ You have 07:30 to answer 15 questions. The timer only starts when you click Begin.

Ads paying for your free English lessons. Prefer a quiet page? Go ad-free

Questions 15

Q1 15

07:30

Q1 15

Question 1: A politician responds to her opponent's tax reform proposal by saying: 'How can we trust your economic ideas when you filed for personal bankruptcy twice?' Which logical fallacy is this an example of?

Question 1 options

A Ad hominem

B Straw man

C Red herring

D Slippery slope

This is an ad hominem fallacy because the speaker attacks the opponent's personal financial history rather than addressing the merits of the tax reform proposal itself. The opponent's personal bankruptcy is irrelevant to whether the policy is sound.

Report an issue with this question

Issue type * Description (optional)Email (optional, for reply)

Q2 15

Question 2: In a debate about renewable energy, one speaker says: 'Your argument is invalid because you own shares in a solar company, so you're only saying this for ___.' Which phrase best completes this example of a circumstantial ad hominem?

Question 2 options

A scientific accuracy

B public awareness

C environmental protection

D personal financial gain

The phrase 'personal financial gain' correctly completes this circumstantial ad hominem, which attacks the opponent's motives based on their personal circumstances rather than addressing their argument about renewable energy.

Report an issue with this question

Issue type * Description (optional)Email (optional, for reply)

Q3 15

Question 3: An ad hominem fallacy always involves using offensive or abusive language against an opponent.

Question 3 options

A True

B False

This is false. Ad hominem fallacies do not always involve abusive language. A circumstantial ad hominem, for example, may politely suggest that the opponent's personal circumstances bias their argument, without any abusive language at all.

Report an issue with this question

Issue type * Description (optional)Email (optional, for reply)

Q4 15

Question 4: Which of the following sentences correctly demonstrates an ad hominem fallacy?

Question 4 options

A If we allow this policy, it will eventually lead to the collapse of the entire education system.

B You dropped out of university, so your views on education policy are worthless.

C Your policy is flawed because the statistics you cited have been debunked by recent studies.

D Your education policy would cost too much money because the budget analysis shows a deficit.

'You dropped out of university, so your views on education policy are worthless' is an ad hominem fallacy because it dismisses the person's argument by attacking their personal background rather than engaging with their actual claims about education policy.

Report an issue with this question

Issue type * Description (optional)Email (optional, for reply)

Q5 15

Question 5: Match each type of ad hominem fallacy to its correct definition.

Question 5 options

Abusive ad hominem

Circumstantial ad hominem

Tu quoque

Guilt by association

Discredits by linking the arguer to something negative

Uses the arguer's past behaviour against them

Claims personal circumstances bias the arguer's position

Directly attacks the person's character or traits

Select an item on the left, then tap its match on the right.

Abusive ad hominem directly insults the person. Circumstantial ad hominem questions motives based on personal circumstances. Tu quoque points out the arguer's past contradictory behaviour. Guilt by association links the arguer to a negatively viewed group or idea.

Report an issue with this question

Issue type * Description (optional)Email (optional, for reply)

Q6 15

Question 6: Which of the following arguments contains a logical fallacy in its reasoning? A) 'The data clearly shows that the medication has dangerous side effects.' B) 'Dr. Patel's research methodology has been criticised by multiple peer reviewers.' C) 'You were arrested ten years ago, so nothing you say about criminal justice can be trusted.' D) 'This proposal contradicts the findings of three independent studies.'

Question 6 options

A D

B B

C A

D C

This option contains an ad hominem fallacy because it dismisses the person's argument about criminal justice by pointing to an irrelevant personal event from their past. The other options engage with evidence, methodology, or research findings rather than attacking the person.

Report an issue with this question

Issue type * Description (optional)Email (optional, for reply)

Q7 15

Question 7: In an academic essay analysing flawed arguments, which of the following best fills the blank? 'The senator's rebuttal was a classic example of ___, as she attacked her colleague's divorce rather than his proposed amendment.'

Question 7 options

A a bandwagon fallacy

B a false dilemma

C an appeal to authority

D ad hominem

The term 'ad hominem' best fits because the senator directed her rebuttal at her colleague's personal life (his divorce) rather than addressing the substance of his proposed amendment, which is the defining characteristic of this fallacy.

Report an issue with this question

Issue type * Description (optional)Email (optional, for reply)

Q8 15

Question 8: The following sentence contains a misidentified fallacy: 'When the journalist said that only uneducated people support the policy, she committed a straw man fallacy.' Which option correctly fixes the error?

Question 8 options

A When the journalist said that only uneducated people support the policy, she committed a false cause fallacy.

B When the journalist said that only uneducated people support the policy, she committed a red herring fallacy.

C When the journalist said that only uneducated people support the policy, she committed an ad hominem fallacy.

D When the journalist said that only uneducated people support the policy, she committed a slippery slope fallacy.

The journalist's remark attacks the character and intelligence of the people who hold a position rather than addressing the policy itself. This is an ad hominem fallacy (specifically abusive ad hominem), not a straw man, which involves misrepresenting someone's argument.

Report an issue with this question

Issue type * Description (optional)Email (optional, for reply)

Q9 15

Question 9: Arrange the parts in the correct order to construct a well-structured paragraph that identifies and explains an ad hominem fallacy in a debate.

Question 9 options

His opponent responded: 'You've never even been inside a public hospital, so your plan is meaningless.'
Rather than addressing the merits of the reform plan, the opponent attacked Harris's personal experience to discredit his argument.
During the town hall debate on healthcare, Councillor Harris was challenged about his reform plan.
This response constitutes an ad hominem fallacy.

Drag items or use arrows to arrange them in the correct order.

A well-structured analytical paragraph first presents the context, then quotes the specific fallacious statement, identifies the fallacy by name, and finally explains why the reasoning is flawed.

Report an issue with this question

Issue type * Description (optional)Email (optional, for reply)

Q10 15

Question 10: You are writing a formal essay about logical fallacies in political campaigns. A candidate dismissed her rival's healthcare plan by saying, 'My opponent has never raised a family, so she cannot understand what parents need.' Which option best describes this for your essay?

Question 10 options

A The candidate employed a circumstantial ad hominem by suggesting her rival's personal situation invalidated her argument.

B The candidate used an appeal to emotion fallacy by trying to evoke sympathy from parents.

C The candidate committed a guilt by association fallacy by linking her rival to an unpopular group.

D The candidate used a tu quoque fallacy by accusing her rival of hypocrisy.

Describing it as a circumstantial ad hominem is most accurate and appropriate for a formal essay because the candidate is not directly insulting her rival but rather claiming that her rival's personal circumstances (not having raised a family) disqualify her from having a valid opinion on the topic.

Report an issue with this question

Issue type * Description (optional)Email (optional, for reply)

Q11 15

Question 11: What is the key difference between a tu quoque fallacy and an abusive ad hominem?

Question 11 options

A Tu quoque misrepresents the opponent's argument, while abusive ad hominem dismisses it entirely.

B Tu quoque attacks the person's argument, while abusive ad hominem attacks the person's character.

C Tu quoque is used only in legal settings, while abusive ad hominem is used in everyday arguments.

D Tu quoque accuses the arguer of hypocrisy based on past behaviour, while abusive ad hominem directly insults the person's character.

The key distinction is that tu quoque specifically highlights a contradiction between the arguer's past actions and their current claim (charging hypocrisy), whereas abusive ad hominem directly attacks the person's character, traits, or qualities without necessarily pointing to any contradictory behaviour.

Report an issue with this question

Issue type * Description (optional)Email (optional, for reply)

Q12 15

Question 12: Which version of the following sentence is most appropriate for an academic essay on argumentation? The original idea: someone dismissed a climate scientist's research because the scientist once worked for an oil company.

Question 12 options

A The critic basically trashed the scientist's findings because he used to work for Big Oil, which is totally an ad hominem move.

B It was wrong of the critic to bring up the scientist's old job because everyone has a past and that doesn't mean their science is bad.

C The critic committed a circumstantial ad hominem by dismissing the researcher's findings on the basis of her former employment with a petroleum company.

D The critic attacked the scientist personally, which was really unfair and had nothing to do with whether the research was any good.

The most academic version uses precise terminology ('circumstantial ad hominem'), formal register, and objective language. It avoids colloquial expressions, emotional language, and overly casual phrasing that would be inappropriate in scholarly writing.

Report an issue with this question

Issue type * Description (optional)Email (optional, for reply)

Q13 15

Question 13: Pointing out a genuine conflict of interest in a speaker's argument is always an ad hominem fallacy.

Question 13 options

A True

B False

This is false. Identifying a genuine, documented conflict of interest can be a legitimate and relevant concern in evaluating an argument's credibility. An ad hominem fallacy occurs when personal circumstances are used as the sole basis for dismissing an argument without addressing its actual content or evidence.

Report an issue with this question

Issue type * Description (optional)Email (optional, for reply)

Q14 15

Question 14: In a debate about animal testing, one speaker says to another: 'You wear leather shoes, so your argument against animal testing is hypocritical and invalid.' What is the primary effect of this fallacy on the argument?

Question 14 options

A It diverts attention from the argument's substance by attacking the opponent's consistency.

B It establishes the speaker's moral authority on the topic of animal rights.

C It introduces new evidence that logically disproves the opponent's claim.

D It strengthens the argument by providing a relevant counterexample from the opponent's life.

The primary effect of this tu quoque (a type of ad hominem) is to divert attention away from the actual merits of the argument against animal testing by focusing on the speaker's perceived hypocrisy. It shifts the discussion from the issue to the person, undermining logical discourse.

Report an issue with this question

Issue type * Description (optional)Email (optional, for reply)

Q15 15

Question 15: Which is the best revision of the following weak sentence? Original: 'The guy basically just attacked the other guy instead of talking about the actual issue, which is a thing people do in arguments sometimes.'

Question 15 options

A Instead of discussing the issue, the speaker went after his opponent personally, which was not very nice or logical at all.

B The speaker committed an ad hominem fallacy by targeting his opponent's character rather than engaging with the substance of the argument.

C The guy made a straw man argument by saying bad things about the other person instead of focusing on what they were debating about.

D The man used a mean personal attack on the other man, which is a fallacy that happens a lot in debates and arguments.

The best revision uses precise terminology ('ad hominem fallacy'), replaces vague language with specific academic vocabulary, and clearly explains the nature of the flawed reasoning in a concise and formal manner appropriate for analytical writing.

Report an issue with this question