At last night's San Antonio festival hearing, several residents argued that food trucks should be banned downtown because, as one speaker put it, "those trucks are always dirty, and the cooks rarely care about safety." Another said, "Everyone knows food truck owners cut corners and vanish when inspectors arrive." These comments were used to push for a sweeping ban, even though no health reports were discussed and many local vendors have passed recent inspections. Claiming that an entire group of small businesses is careless ignores differences among individual owners. Instead of evaluating evidence, the argument relies on broad labels about "those people." That kind of reasoning may sound decisive, but it lumps diverse vendors together and treats a few anecdotes as universal truth for everyone.

Which type of faulty reasoning is most evident in this excerpt?

Our city should approve new stadium lights because without them, our athletes will feel abandoned, and the town's spirit will fade. Picture seniors walking the field in darkness, their dreams flickering out like candles. Do you want to be the neighbor who lets that happen? If you truly care about kids, you will support the plan now. Opponents keep asking for maintenance costs and safety studies, but numbers cannot measure pride, and spreadsheets cannot hug a disappointed student. The heart knows what is right; we must listen. Those who hesitate forget the tears of students who practice in the dark. Choose hope, not hesitation, and stand with our youth. Think of the cheers, the bright nights, and the pride shining in every home each season.

Which flaw most weakens the argument in this passage?

Some students want a short phone break during lunch, but that tiny crack would destroy our school. The moment phones appear, learning will collapse, hallways will explode with chaos, and teachers will spend every second wrestling glowing screens from stampedes of texting zombies. Phones are magnets for disaster; one buzz becomes a thousand, and the building will forget what silence feels like. Parents will never see their children again because the kids will be swallowed by apps. We cannot risk it. A single allowance today becomes endless scrolling tomorrow, and soon no one will read a book or greet a friend. To save our community, we must lock every phone away forever. That tiny choice would wreck attention, purpose, and everything school should protect completely.

The author's language mainly relies on which faulty reasoning technique?

West Texas communities face drought, but the pipeline proposal frames the issue unfairly: either we rush to build a giant pipeline right now or we accept that our towns will dry up and die. That choice ignores options like repairing leaky lines, expanding conservation rebates, drilling additional wells where aquifers allow, and partnering on smaller regional connections. Supporters repeat, "Build immediately or lose everything," as if delay equals doom. Urgency matters, yet pretending there are only two paths forces residents to pick sides instead of comparing costs and benefits. By squeezing a complex problem into an all-or-nothing ultimatum, the argument oversimplifies reality and tries to win by fear, not by evaluating the full range of practical, testable solutions. Data and patience can guide better choices.

What specific flaw undermines the pipeline argument?

Texans deserve greatness, and the BlazeKing Pitmaster 5000 delivers nothing less than perfection. One bite from ribs off this grill will change your life forever, guaranteed. Everyone who tries it agrees that no other grill even comes close; in fact, every other grill is a total disaster by comparison. With our proprietary flame magic, your brisket will be the juiciest meat in the history of barbecue. Neighbors will line up around the block, cheering your name, and your cookouts will become legendary statewide. Don't settle for weak, flimsy alternatives when you can own the only grill worthy of true Texas pride. Order today, conquer every weekend, and never suffer another disappointing dinner again. Supplies are vanishing fast, so act now before opportunity disappears for good.

Which type of faulty reasoning most clearly appears in this advertisement?

We must ban all glass containers on the Guadalupe River immediately, not because a study says so, but because our children's laughter depends on it. Imagine a barefoot kid slipping on one stray shard and watching a summer dream shatter—could you live with that? Think of the duck with a cut foot, the family picnic ruined, the grandmother afraid to wade. If you truly love Texas hill country traditions, your heart is already breaking. Opponents say "wait for more data," but hesitation is a cold shrug toward pain. Real Texans protect family first and ask questions later. Ban glass today, and we'll keep every float trip pure, safe, and joyful forever. Don't let fear of change drown the smiles we treasure each summer in Texas.

Which flawed technique is primarily used to persuade the audience in this passage?

Our coastal town doesn't need another hotel because tourists are always careless and rude. They crowd every sidewalk, ignore signs, and leave trash wherever they please. Everyone knows tourists can't respect local traditions; they just want selfies and loud parties. Build one more hotel, and you'll invite an army of rule-breakers who will trample gardens, block driveways, and bother shopkeepers. Residents are polite, hardworking people who clean up messes; tourists just make them. City leaders should protect us from outsiders instead of rolling out the red carpet. If we stop the hotel now, we'll preserve our community's character and finally get some peace. Everyone has seen it: suitcases scraping paint, beach chairs blocking doors, chaos following. Another hotel means more headaches, not harmony, for locals.

Which faulty reasoning most weakens the author's argument against a new hotel?

Either we approve funding for a brand-new stadium this month, or we admit we don't care about our students, our town spirit, or our future. There is no middle ground. You can stand with progress and pride, or stand with neglect and embarrassment. People claiming to support "renovation" are simply anti-student; patching a few bleachers is the same as giving up. The choice is simple: vote yes for a perfect facility that will fix attendance, grades, and morale overnight, or vote no and watch everything fall apart. Our rivals are laughing already. If we delay, we'll lose our identity and our kids will suffer. There's no time for studies, committees, or questions—only loyalty and action. Choose greatness now, or choose failure forever; nothing else exists.

Which faulty reasoning is most evident in this argument about the stadium?