Yummy Chicken Rice~~~

Dad and I have lunch in a food court where there is one stall who famous with chicken rice nearby SS2 PJ. We ordered roaster chicken chest and thigh with rice. We enjoy our lunch very much because the food was delicious! The skin of the roaster chicken is so crispy. Somehow we found that the skins of chicken are quite charred thus we told the stall hawker about it. Do you know how he answered us?
He said: “The skins of the roaster chickens that I sale are quite char but this is my style. My customers told me that my chicken rice is the number one in Petaling Jaya. Don’t worry man!”
Then we just say goodbye and thank you for the delicious meal. On the way home I was thinking and thinking which fallacy the stall hawker used. Lastly I found that he was using Ad Hominem Circumstantial fallacy. Of course the stall hawker wants to maintain his reputation and claim that there is no problem with the charred skin of the chicken.
I also discovered that the argument that the stall hawker claimed is a bad argument. Let’s see again what he said: “The skins of the roaster chickens that I sell are quite char but this is my style. My customers told me that my chicken rice is the number one in Petaling Jaya. Don’t worry man!”
His conclusion is: Don’t worry about the charred chicken skin.
His premise one is: This is my style.
His premise two is: My customers told me that my chicken rice is the number one in Petaling Jaya.
I was not persuaded by his premises to believe in his conclusion because I know that charred food is not good for health. The conclusion is untrue and the premise two is irrelevant to the conclusion. Therefore this is an inductive argument.