Passage Summary: A reader argues that we should ignore a proposal for mandatory ID cards because the people who wrote the proposal didn't even sign their own names to it.

Conclusion: The argument that everyone should be required to carry identification cards is mistaken.

Reasoning: The authors of the article proposing the ID cards remained anonymous, which is hypocritical if they believe the right to anonymity is trivial.

Analysis: The author of the letter is guilty of a classic 'ad hominem' attack, specifically focusing on the perceived hypocrisy of the writers. Just because the writers chose to remain anonymous while downplaying the importance of anonymity doesn't actually mean their arguments for ID cards are logically unsound. It is certainly ironic to hide your identity while telling others to show theirs, but irony is not a logical refutation. Look for an answer that identifies the flaw of attacking the person (or their behavior) rather than the substance of the argument itself.