- Thu Nov 21, 2024 2:55 pm
#110749
Hi Lounalola!
Let's break down the stimulus:
P1: Colleague says we should reject this act because it would deter investment
P2: Colleague has voted for acts that would inhibit investment in the past, therefore, this can't be her real reason for opposing the act
P3: Since colleague has not revealed real reason for opposing the act, said reason must not be persuasive
C: Therefore, we ought to approve the act
Here, we can see it is the case that the legislator is attacking their colleague, not the reasoning their colleague presented. Sure, the colleague may actually oppose the act for other, potentially weaker reasons than the one they presented. However, that doesn't mean the reason the colleague presented, the fact that the act would deter investment, isn't valid.
Now, let's look at answer choice A: "treats a personal character trait as if it were evidence of the professional viewpoint of the person having that trait"
The legislator doesn't actually cite any personal character traits of their colleague-- they only refer to past professional choices/viewpoints (i.e. the colleague voting on legislation that has inhibited investment in the past). The legislator then proceeds by saying that inhibiting investment must not be their colleagues real reason for opposing the act, but again, this is based on a professional precedent, not a personal one.
I hope this helps!
