(C) states that the argument is flawed because it "treats circumstances potentially affecting the union leaders' argument as sufficient to discredit those leaders' argument." This is exactly what the politician's argument does. It takes the fact that "[union] leaders have a vested interest in seeing wages remain high" as sufficient to conclude that their argument should be rejected. A potential bias is not reason enough to dismiss an argument and ignore it's substance, so (C) points out the correct flaw.
(B) states that the argument is flawed because it "presumes, without providing justification, that anyone whose political motivations are clearly discernible is an unreliable source of information to legislators." This is incorrect because it is too far-reaching. The passage is limited only to the discussion of the union leaders, it does not make a general claim about "anyone" with a clear political motivation.
Does that make sense? Please let us know if you have any other questions!
DavidClimberJanuary 7, 2021
Excuse me, but does that mean that the "circumstances potentially affecting the union leaders' argument" is pertaining to the intention of the union leaders? Because it is a common flaw to dismiss an argument simply because of a certain intention.
