-
garima99
- Master | Next Rank: 500 Posts
- Posts: 217
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 9:42 pm
- Thanked: 8 times
- Followed by:2 members
Politician: My opponent says our zoning laws too strongly promote suburban single-family dwellings and should be changed to encourage other forms of housing like apartment buildings. Yet he lives in a house in the country. His lifestyle contradicts his own argument, which should therefore not be taken seriously.
The politician's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the ground that
(A) Its characterization of the opponent's lifestyle reveals the politician's own prejudice against constructing apartment buildings.
(B) It neglects the fact that apartment buildings can be built in the suburbs just as easily as in the center of the city.
(C) It fails to mention the politician's own living situation
(D) Its discussion of the opponent's lifestyle is irrelevant to the merits of the opponent's argument.
(E) It ignores the possibility that the opponent may have previously lived in an apartment building.
The politician's reasoning is most vulnerable to criticism on the ground that
(A) Its characterization of the opponent's lifestyle reveals the politician's own prejudice against constructing apartment buildings.
(B) It neglects the fact that apartment buildings can be built in the suburbs just as easily as in the center of the city.
(C) It fails to mention the politician's own living situation
(D) Its discussion of the opponent's lifestyle is irrelevant to the merits of the opponent's argument.
(E) It ignores the possibility that the opponent may have previously lived in an apartment building.
