$38$

$0\mathrm{.}6$ points

Jamie uses a shampoo and all her hair falls out due it being a faulty product. Jamie's theory for suing is based on the fact that the corporation has lots of money, and the

corporation should pay for her medical expenses. Clearly, the consumer is missing the point. The issue is whether the corporation's product caused her injuries, not whether

money should be transferred from a wealthy corporation to a poor consumer. You see this also as:

false analogy.

res ipsa loquitor.

Argumentum ad populum.

non sequitur.