Do you think that logical arguments are a better support for a position than arguments that are based on authority or character? in other words would you support a policy just because a celebrity or an important expert supported it?

Logical arguments are better support for a position than arguments based on authority or character.

For this reason, it would be easier for me to accept a policy backed by an expert than a celebrity, but before supporting the policy I would consider whether the argument is credible.

Explanation:

Logical arguments show a ration for you to believe that these arguments are correct and valid. An argument based on authority and character may even provide logical evidence, but this type of argument is more likely to be strongly biased and not to show true facts. For this reason, we must always evaluate very well the arguments we accept as true.