What fallacy occurs when personal attacks are used in defense of an argument regarding law enforcement?

The reasoning behind selecting the option related to personal attacks is rooted in the definition of the Ad Hominem fallacy. This fallacy occurs when an argument is rebutted by attacking the character or motive of the person making the argument rather than addressing the substance of the argument itself. In the context of discussions about law enforcement, if someone critiques the policies or actions of law enforcement and the response is a personal attack on their character or qualifications, then the Ad Hominem fallacy has been committed. This diverts the discussion away from the critical issues at hand and undermines rational debate.

On the other hand, the other options do not fit this scenario as precisely. The Straw Man fallacy involves misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack, rather than directly attacking their character. The Appeal to Ignorance relies on a lack of evidence to support a claim, suggesting that something is true because it hasn't been proven false. Inconsequent Argument, or irrelevant conclusion, redirects the argument to a conclusion that is unrelated to the premises presented. Each of these falls short of the specific act of personal attack highlighted in the Ad Hominem fallacy.