Passage Summary: A mayor claims that jaywalking laws are a waste of time because the rule-breakers ignore them anyway, and the rule-followers are naturally law-abiding and don't need a sign to tell them what to do.

Conclusion: The law that forbids pedestrians from crossing against red lights is essentially useless.

Reasoning: A law is only useful if it deters the behavior it forbids, but the people who break this law aren't deterred by it, and the people who follow it would behave the same way even if the law didn't exist.

Analysis: The mayor’s argument suffers from a classic case of ignoring the middle ground. By dividing the world into people who 'invariably' violate the law and those who would 'never' cross against the light, the mayor overlooks the very group laws are designed for: the fence-sitters. We should look for an answer that points out the mayor fails to consider people who might actually be tempted to cross against the light but choose not to specifically because the law exists. It's a bit like saying speed limits are useless because some people always speed and some people always drive slowly; it ignores everyone else in the middle who checks their speedometer when they see a patrol car.