When someone points out minor problems in another's argument rather than addressing the overall argument, which tactic are they using?

The correct answer is identifying the tactic of disproving a minor point. This approach involves focusing on small flaws or issues in the opposing argument, rather than tackling the main thesis or the central claims being made. By highlighting these minor problems, the individual creates the impression that the entire argument is weak or flawed, even if the core reasoning may still hold strong. This tactic is often considered a form of distraction, as it diverts attention from the broader context of the argument.

The other options refer to different argumentative tactics. Attacking the cornerstone involves focusing on foundational elements of an argument. Marshalling evidence means gathering and presenting facts or statistics to support one’s own argument. Circular reasoning occurs when an argument is supported by its own conclusion rather than by external evidence, creating a logical fallacy. Understanding these distinctions helps to recognize the specific strategy at play when minor issues are emphasized in a debate or discussion.