Which argument style is demonstrated when lacking evidence to support a claim about a controversial issue?

The argument style that demonstrates a lack of evidence to support a claim about a controversial issue is known as an appeal to ignorance. This logical fallacy occurs when someone asserts that a claim must be true simply because it has not been proven false, or vice versa. In this context, it relies on the absence of evidence rather than presenting substantial proof to support a claim, which can be particularly common in controversial discussions where definitive data may not be available to either side.

For example, claiming that a specific theory is valid solely because no one has been able to disprove it exemplifies this approach. This tactic distracts from the need for concrete evidence and instead creates a false dichotomy where the absence of information is misrepresented as validation.

In contrast, the other argument styles mentioned involve different reasoning patterns. Leading questions often suggest a particular answer within the question itself, ad hominem attacks focus on discrediting the person making the argument rather than addressing the argument itself, and disproving a minor point involves challenging a small aspect of an argument without addressing the broader claim. Each of these approaches differs fundamentally from the appeal to ignorance, which specifically hinges on the lack of evidence to make a claim.