This passage makes a strong point, but then commits a fallacy. It would appear that, indeed, the AFT leader is hypocritical; her choice to send her kids to private schools suggests (but doesn’t necessarily prove) that she doesn’t believe her own assertions about the quality of public schools. Again, this raises a red flag about her arguments; it’s a reason to subject them to heightened scrutiny. But it is not a sufficient reason to reject them out of hand, and to accept the opposite of her conclusions. That’s committing a fallacy.
The passage raises a valid concern but falls into a logical error. While the AFT leader's decision to send her children to private schools may suggest a lack of confidence in public schools, this alone does not definitively disprove her claims about their quality. This inconsistency warrants closer examination of her arguments, but it does not justify dismissing them entirely or automatically accepting opposing views. Doing so would constitute a fallacy.
This passage raises an important concern while also demonstrating a logical error. The AFT leader's decision to send her children to private schools may imply that she questions the quality of public schools, which warrants closer examination of her arguments. However, this implication alone does not justify outright dismissal of her views or the acceptance of contrasting conclusions. Such a response would be a logical fallacy.
This paragraph is a very pertinent issue and also a logical fallacy. The AFT leader’s choice to send her children to private schools could be a sign that she doubts the quality of public schools, and her claims should be questioned. But this implication is not sufficient to justify a complete rejection of her opinions or the adoption of opposite conclusions. That would be a logical fallacy.
This paragraph brings up a significant issue, but also contains a logical fallacy. The AFT leader's choice to send her kids to private schools could suggest that she doubts the quality of public schools, and that deserves a more thorough review of her claims. But this implication alone does not warrant the rejection of her views or the acceptance of opposite conclusions. That would be a logical fallacy.