Passage Summary: A pundit argues that when voters complain about their politicians being useless, they are actually seeing the side effects of those politicians doing their jobs—specifically, the messy compromises required to get funding.

Conclusion: Public dissatisfaction with legislative representatives serves as evidence that those representatives are performing the duties they were elected to fulfill.

Reasoning: Dissatisfaction arises from perceived ineffectuality, but this ineffectuality is actually the result of necessary compromises made while competing for limited government funds.

Analysis: The pundit makes a massive leap from 'some dissatisfaction comes from compromise' to 'all dissatisfaction proves they are doing their job.' To make this logic hold, the pundit must assume that there aren't other, more valid reasons for people to be unhappy, such as actual incompetence or corruption. You should look for an answer that bridges the gap between the feeling of dissatisfaction and the specific cause of competing for funds. If people are mad for any other reason, the pundit's 'assurance' vanishes.