Jane: "Several major studies dating back as far as the 1960s have identified a link
between a diet high in animal fats and an elevated risk of coronary artery disease. So..
it makes sense to stick with a diet low in fat and high in fruits and whole grains."
Larry: "Those studies were all bought and paid for by the sugar lobby. It could be
carbohydrates, not fat, that are responsible for so many heart attacks. So, I don't
worry about my fat intake." How is Larry's response related to Jane's argument?
It erroneously assumes that there is any connection between coronary artery
disease and heart attacks.
It engages in an ad hominem attack by questioning Jane's intelligence for relying
on outdated studies.
It rejects her conclusion by discounting the credibility of her evidence.
It assumes without evidence that carbohydrates are responsible for heart
attacks.
It is a non-sequitur because Jane was talking about animal fats and Larry speaks
only of "fats" generally.