Passage Summary: A politician says we shouldn't listen to his rival's ideas about housing just because the rival doesn't live in the kind of housing he's recommending.

Conclusion: The opponent's argument regarding zoning law changes should be dismissed.

Reasoning: The opponent's personal lifestyle (living in a country house) is inconsistent with his policy recommendation (promoting apartment buildings).

Analysis: This is a textbook 'ad hominem' attack, specifically the 'tu quoque' or 'hypocrisy' variety. The politician ignores the actual merits of the zoning argument and instead attacks the opponent's personal choices. Just because a doctor smokes doesn't mean their advice to quit smoking is medically unsound. Look for an answer choice that identifies this logical error—specifically, that the personal circumstances of a person making an argument are irrelevant to the truth or validity of the argument itself.