Which logical fallacy is most evident when questioning someone's background rather than their argument?

The ad hominem fallacy is evident when someone focuses on questioning another individual’s character, background, or personal attributes instead of addressing the argument they are making. This type of fallacy diverts attention away from the actual issue at hand, undermining the logic of the discussion. Instead of engaging with the reasoning or evidence provided, the person resorts to attacking the individual, suggesting that their personal qualities somehow invalidate their position. This tactic can detract from a constructive dialogue and divert the discussion into personal matters that are not relevant to the argument being presented.

In contrast, the other options refer to different types of logical fallacies. For instance, an appeal to authority involves citing an authority figure to support an argument instead of presenting relevant evidence. A red herring introduces a distraction that misleads from the topic being discussed, while a straw man misrepresents an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. None of these directly address the act of questioning someone’s background as a means to dismiss their argument, which is the hallmark of ad hominem reasoning.