#8 - Politician: My opponent says our zoning laws too strong

[voodoochild]

Argument :

Conclusion - Opponents' lifestyle shouldn't be taken seriously.
Premise - His lifestyle contradicts his own argument

Why is E) incorrect? In describing the relationship between the lifestyle and the argument, the politician says that his opponent lives in a house. However, the fact that the opponent has ALSO lived in an apartment building in the past would weaken the argument. I agree that D) is better than E). But, E) could be considered an example in which the author "forgot" to consider additional premise, which, if true, would weaken the argument.

Here's a similar argument:

Premise - Bumblebee bats fly in the night.
Conclusion - All bats are nocturnal.

Weakener - Fruit bats are not active in night.

We could use the above analogous situation to say that the opponent is not "contradicting" his own argument. Essentially, the politician argument *fails* to consider another premise, which, if true, would kill the argument.

Thoughts?

Thanks

[Steve Stein]

Interesting question.

One issue here is that this is not a Weaken question; it asks for the best characterization of the argument's flaw--which answer choice provides the best grounds for criticism or best logical critique of the argument.

So, the politician's argument:

My opponent says zoning laws should encourage people to live in apartments.
But my opponent lives in a house, so his argument cant be taken seriously.

There is a very specific problem with this argument--the opponent's own lifestyle has nothing to do with the merits of the argument. This is provided by answer choice D.

Unless there is some underlying reason that the politician needs to consider the possibility that the opponent used to live in an apartment, answer choice E doesn't really provide a basis for criticism.

I hope that's helpful--let me know whether this one's clear--thanks!

~Steve