Answer:
A
Explanation:
Red herring. This fallacy blames something entirely irrelevant on the cause of something else. E.g. This happened and so did that. Therefore, this caused that.
Both C and D have to do with attacking arguments or people, E is simply aggrandizement, and B is coming to an illogical conclusion.
1. His argument is that the two boys should not be sentenced to death, and that the "Wild and extravagant stories were freely published as if they were fact." Should not be used against the boys, due to their status of wealth. He argues that never before has a minor been sentenced to death in the state of Illinois and that the media frenzy around the case should not be used in their conviction.
2."And I think I am safe in saying, although I have not examined all the records and could not, but I think I am safe in saying that never has there been such a case in the state of Illinois."
"Why need a judge be urged by every argument, moderate and immoderate, to hang two boys in the face of every precedent in Illinois and in the face of progress of the last 50—at least twenty-five—years?"<span>
He uses persuasive language to lessen the impact of the case against the boys, by calling into question the legal system and the humanity of the judge as well as the historical cases in the state of Illinois.</span>
