Either our city bans every sugary drink from school cafeterias, or we're telling kids that health doesn't matter. There is no middle ground. Opponents claim moderation works, but that's just code for doing nothing. If you really cared about students, you'd support a total ban; anyone who hesitates obviously prefers cavities and laziness. We have to choose: protect children or protect soda profits. The so-called "balanced" approach only confuses families and wastes time, because the only effective policy is the strongest possible policy. Until we cut out all sugar, we can't claim to be serious about education, since healthy bodies are the foundation of learning, and only a ban proves we value learning. Anything less leaves kids vulnerable and tells industry to keep pushing hard.

Which faulty reasoning most weakens the author's argument?

Some critics say the Texas drought ordinance goes too far. But the ordinance is clearly necessary because it's the kind of rule responsible Texans support. We know responsible Texans support it because the ordinance only asks what responsible people already do: use water responsibly. If you oppose the ordinance, you're not acting responsibly, which proves the ordinance defines responsibility correctly. Besides, the Legislature created a task force, and task forces don't exist unless there's a real need; the need is real because we have a task force. People ask for evidence it will work, but it will work precisely because it is a responsible ordinance. Responsible rules work, and this is a responsible rule, so it will work—no more questions. That should settle the debate.

What type of faulty reasoning is used to claim the ordinance will work?

Every time I visit the mall, I see groups of teens glued to their phones, barely looking up. That proves today's teenagers have no attention span and don't care about real relationships. Just ask my neighbor, who teaches one class and says her students hate reading. Plus, I read two online comments from parents who said their kids only respond to emojis. Clearly, the entire generation is lost to screens. Schools shouldn't waste money on libraries anymore, because teens won't read anyway. Instead, we must pour every dollar into phone-blocking technology, since teenagers can't control themselves. If a few claim they like books, they're just exceptions that prove the rule: teens are addicted, and nothing else explains their behavior. It's obvious to anyone paying attention.

Which option best describes the faulty reasoning in this passage?

Some candidates oppose expanding rail service in our Texas city, but consider the source: these are the same folks who can't even show up to meetings on time. If they're tardy, how could their transit ideas be serious? Voters shouldn't trust people who dress sloppily and mumble through press conferences. Their plan must be bad because they seem unprofessional. Also, one opponent once got a parking ticket, so obviously he doesn't understand transportation. Meanwhile, our plan speaks for itself: it's the best because it was written by winners who know how to win. Do you want leadership from habitual latecomers, or from disciplined winners? The choice is clear—reject the messy, unreliable crowd and pick competence for a change. That's how responsible Texans choose their leaders.

Which faulty reasoning most undermines the argument against the opposing candidates?

Next month, Austin voters will decide on a transit upgrade. Let's be honest: either we pass this plan, or we choose a lifetime of gridlock. If you think there might be other ways to improve traffic, you're simply pretending not to see reality. The city cannot afford to waste time on half-measures or tinkering; it's all-in or all-chaos. Some critics mumble about costs, but that just proves they don't value families getting home for dinner. There is no middle path, no alternative investments, no phased approach—approve the package now, or admit you want Austin to stall out forever. The choice is as clear as a Texas sky: vote yes, or accept never-ending brake lights. Compromise is just another word for surrender here. Responsible leaders know that. Anything else invites gridlock's return tomorrow anyway.

Which logical fallacy is primarily used in this excerpt, and why does it weaken the argument?

Why reach for any drink but Lone Star Surge? It's the best energy on the market because winners choose it, and winners choose it because it's the best. That's how you know. When you need to power through practice, pick the can champions pick; after all, champions wouldn't drink anything less than the best, and the best is what champions drink. The flavor proves the power, and the power proves the flavor: unbeatable. Don't waste time reading charts or studies—your success tomorrow depends on choosing the drink successful people use today. If success had a taste, this would be it, because this is the taste of success. Be a winner: drink Lone Star Surge, the choice of winners. That's just winning, plain and simple. Always.

What kind of faulty reasoning drives the ad's core claim, and how does it hurt its persuasiveness?

People say social media is complicated, but the truth is obvious: every teenager who scrolls those apps turns lazy and rude. I saw three students at the park last weekend, and they barely looked up from their phones. That proves what's happening across the country—screens are destroying work ethic and manners in all kids. Schools try lessons and clubs, yet nothing can fix it because once a teen downloads an app, they stop caring about homework, family, and community. Ask any parent; they'll tell you the same story. Until we ban these platforms for minors, we should expect failing grades, empty dinner tables, and selfish attitudes from the entire generation. It's simple cause and effect. No exceptions, no alternatives, no excuses will ever change this.

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

The proposed plan to extend library hours doesn't deserve serious debate because the councilmember pushing it is a lifelong bookworm who's never held a real job outside campus. Why would we trust policy from someone who hides in stacks instead of dealing with the real world? Look at his tweed jackets and coffee habit—clearly he just wants quiet places to sit, not vibrant neighborhoods. Supporters keep asking for data on usage and costs, but that misses the point: the sponsor's personality says everything. If his plan were any good, a practical person would have proposed it already. Until someone with calluses on their hands brings forward a proposal, this idea should be shelved with the dusty novels he loves. That tells you all you need.

Which fallacy undermines the credibility of this argument, and why?