When a person's argument is dismissed because of their background rather than the content of their argument, what fallacy is occurring?

The fallacy that occurs when a person's argument is dismissed due to their background rather than the merits of the argument itself is called Ad Hominem. This rhetorical tactic undermines the credibility of the individual based solely on personal characteristics, such as their background, education, or affiliations, rather than addressing the substance of what they are saying. By focusing on the individual rather than the argument, this fallacy sidesteps the actual discussion and prevents a fair evaluation of the reasons and evidence presented.

In contrast, the other options describe different types of logical flaws. Disproving a Minor Point refers to addressing a small aspect of what someone has argued while ignoring the larger argument. Diversion, often known as a red herring, involves shifting the topic to a different, often unrelated, subject to distract from the original issue. Inconsequent Argument involves presenting conclusions that do not logically follow from the premises, failing to relate effectively to the argument being made. Each of these represents a different failure in logical reasoning but does not specifically target the dismissal based on personal background as Ad Hominem does.