The activist argument is flawed because it fails to consider that looking for some choice which can justify the implementation of law earlier and the suggested wait in present case.

Option A;- Incorrect
The health effects of some types of sodas may be different than the effects of others. We are looking for the consistency in implementation of the law. Health effects of others. We are looking for the consistency in implementation of the law. Health effect is not being discussed, more emphasis should be laid on the bottom base of the discussion.

Option B;- Incorrect
It is possible that the mayor believes lower soda is an insufficient way to encourage healthier lifestyle. This is outrageously out of context, and does not align with the real sense being flawed or not.

Option C;- Incorrect
Soda consumption has been strongly linked to rates of obesity and shorter lifespans. Again does not speak of the basic bone of contention, This argument is invalid.

Option D;- Incorrect
The effects of taxes on local business may not be immediately apparent in all cases. This adds no information, as the mayor expressed this and this it is wrong to assume that the activist didn't consider this.

Option E;- correct
It is possible to weigh known benefits, but not possible to weigh unknown drawbacks in the same way. Now if there were unknown drawbacks in the old scenarios so these could not be compared with benefits, and thus implemented. But in this case the drawbacks and benefits are known and so can be compared and evaluated and then implemented as also in the logical reasoning above it is inferred. This provides a unique reason why the mayor will kick against businesses in one scenario and for them in the other.