Passage Summary: The author wants to fire the whole board because some employees of just one board member were caught taking bribes.

Conclusion: The entire board of directors is corrupt and must be replaced.

Reasoning: There is documented evidence that several staff members working for one specific board member, Wagston, have accepted bribes.

Analysis: This argument commits a glaring 'Part-to-Whole' flaw. The author takes evidence concerning the subordinates of a single board member and uses it to condemn the entire board. Even if we assume Wagston's staff is corrupt, that doesn't automatically prove Wagston is corrupt, let alone the other members of the board who have no connection to those specific staff members. Look for an answer that describes this error of attributing the faults of a small group to the entire organization.