Legislator: My colleague says we should reject this act because it would deter investment. But because in the past sh...

Victoria on July 5, 2019

Hi @hpw,

The legislator is arguing that we should vote to approve the act. Why? Because their colleague said that we should reject the act because it would deter investment. However, the legislator notes that this colleague has voted for legislation that deters investment in the past. Therefore, the legislator believes that this must not be her real reason for opposing the act and "since she has not revealed her real reason, it must not be very persuasive."

We can see that this is a weak argument as the legislator is essential arguing based on past behaviour that their colleague must not have a persuasive reason for opposing the legislation. Based on these points alone, the legislator is arguing that we should approve the legislation.

Now let's go through the answer choices.

A is incorrect because voting for legislation that deters investment in the past is not a personal character trait.

C is incorrect because it is irrelevant. Whether the colleague's opposition is the minority or majority position does not impact the legislator's argument that we should vote to approve the act.

D is incorrect because it conflicts with the legislator's argument. The legislator is voting to approve the act regardless of the fact that it deters investment. Therefore, the argument cannot also presume that voters will oppose this legislation because the legislator is supporting the legislation.

E is a tempting choice however it only addresses one possible reason for the colleague's opposition to the act.

B is the stronger answer choice because it addresses all possibilities for the colleague's opposition to the act that were not examined by the legislator in making their argument. Therefore, B is the correct answer.

Hope this is helpful! Please let us know if you have any further questions.