Ad hominem is one of the major fallacies many entrepreneurs encounter in their occupation. An ad hominem error occurs when someone claims an opponent’s argument is incorrect because claims have been made against the opponent. The question about the reliability of witness testimony arises in cases where it is a question of whether to trust a witness or not. At the workplace, it is common to face this fallacy as the employees might dismiss what they are dictated by the employer and start arguing about personal problems.
This report aims to identify the key causes of the ad hominem fallacy and establish a plan for eradicating the issue. In starting one’s own business, entrepreneurs try to hire a staff that would be efficient in teamwork; however, during the brainstorming, some employees may start an argument and attack their teammates. The problem can be discovered easily by gathering a group of workers, suggesting the ideas for discussion, and asking them to express their opinion by providing logical evidence. The root causes of a fallacy are the inability to act professionally, which contributes to the formation of a negative attitude toward one’s personality, and the incapacity to operate arguments.
Approach and Findings
The major approach to solving the issue effectively is setting ethical standards within the company. The first step for eliminating ad hominem is to recognize the problem and have a discussion on the importance of professional arguments with the employees. The other action presumes obtaining feedback from all the team members and asking them to pose the strongest version of a claim. Such a plan can help an entrepreneur realize the necessity of listening carefully to their workers and identify those who do not act professionally.
In summary, the business owners facing the fallacy of ad hominem must primarily learn to avoid prejudice and take into account employees’ arguments objectively while having their own strong opinion. In addition, all workers must have an unbiased attitude towards each other so as not to cross the line in the argument. The potential drawback of this implementation plan is the inability of some individuals to participate in the reasoning process of the failure to structure their claim logically. Nonetheless, these actions will boost the teammates’ professional reasoning, which will help avoid similar issues in the future.