Which of the following best expresses why thetoric sometimes introduces a logical fallacy into one's argument? A - the argument fails to be limited to logos only

B - the argument suppresses logos by misusing ethos or pathos

C - the argument includes ethos

D - the argument includes pathos

Logical fallacies - these deal with poor logic. Therefore, they can be used to make something seem bigger or more important than it really is. Someone that is reading what you write will recognize that you are using this logical fallacy and they will avoid what you write. They will not want to use you as a source or even use your sources if you cannot be credible. There is literally a disconnect between the info and proof/credibility.

Explanation:

- "a nonrestrictive clause functions as a modifier to a noun (that is an object, person or concept). these clauses can be described by the following three options: it is set off by comas, it contains a subject and a verbs and it adds nonessential information to the sentence.

for example, in "here is bill gates, who confounded microsoft software company" we can identify "who confounded microsoft software company" as a nonrestrictive clause modifying the noun bill gates. this clause can be describes as a nonrestrictive clause because it is separated by a comma, it adds nonessential information to identify who bill gates is and it must contain both a subject (who) and a verb (confounded)."