A real estate developer was appraising one of her oldest properties: The Murphy Building. It was not a pretty sight. Mold grew on the walls. Dark windows were streaked with grime. A thick miasma hung in the air. After her review, the developer addressed her team. "The Murphy Building is getting old and is becoming a hazard for its occupants," she said. "Either we tear it down and put up a new building, or we continue to risk our tenants’ safety."

Which of the following logical fallacies does the developer commit upon arriving at his or her conclusion about the Murphy Building?

A. Weak analogy, present in an argument in which the arguer relies on an analogy between two or more objects, ideas, or situations that are not really alike or analogous in the relevant respect.
B. Begging the question, present in an argument in which the arguer asks his or her opponent to simply accept a conclusion absent any real evidence; the argument either relies on a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion (commonly referred to as “being circular” or “circular reasoning”), or simply ignores an important (but questionable) assumption that the argument rests on.
C. Slippery slope, present in an argument in which the arguer assumes that a chain reaction, usually ending in some dire consequence, will take place, but without enough evidence to support that assumption. The arguer asserts that if one were to take even one step onto the "slippery slope," he or she will invariably end up sliding all the way to the bottom; the arguer assumes the subject cannot halt his or her slide partway down the slope.
D. False dichotomy, present in an argument in which the arguer makes it look as though the answer to a question admits of only two alternatives (one that is logical and one that is illogical), when, in reality, there are multiple undisclosed options available.
E. Ad populum, present in an argument in which the arguer takes advantage of the desire most people have to be liked and to fit in with others, using that desire to try to get the audience to accept his or her argument.

Read the passage. excerpt from "why equal pay is worth fighting for" by senator elizabeth warren, april 17, 2014 i honestly can't believe that we're still arguing over equal pay in 2014. when i started teaching elementary school after college, the public school district didn't hide the fact that it had two pay scales: one for men and one for women. women have made incredible strides since then. but 40 years later, we're still debating equal pay for equal work. women today still earn only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns, and they're taking a hit in nearly every occupation. bloomberg analyzed census data and found that median earnings for women were lower than those for men in 264 of 265 major occupation categories. in 99.6 percent of occupations, men get paid more than women. that's not an accident; that's discrimination. the effects of this discrimination are real, and they are long lasting. today, more young women go to college than men, but unequal pay makes it harder for them to pay back student loans. pay inequality also means a tougher retirement for women. . for middle-class families today, it usually takes two incomes to get by, and many families depend as much on mom's salary as they do on dad's, if not more. women are the main breadwinners, or joint breadwinners, in two-thirds of the families across the country, and pay discrimination makes it that much harder for these families to stay afloat. women are ready to fight back against pay discrimination, but it's not easy. today, a woman can get fired for asking the guy across the hall how much money he makes. here in the senate, sen. barbara mikulski (d-md.) introduced the paycheck fairness act to give women the tools to combat wage discrimination. it would ensure that salary differences have something to do with the actual job that they are doing, and not just because they are women. senator warren states that the effects of pay discrimination are long-lasting. is this a valid argument supported by accurate evidence? no; warren weakens her point by claiming that the paycheck fairness act would "give women the tools to combat wage discrimination." yes; warren supports her point by noting, "for middle-class families today, it usually takes two incomes to get by." yes; warren supports her point by noting, "pay inequality also means a tougher retirement for women." no; warren weakens her point by noting, "today, a woman can get fired for asking the guy across the hall how much money he makes."