Passage Summary: An advisor says the government can cut taxes without cutting services by being more efficient. An editorial argues this is wrong because the advisor committed a crime years ago, so his ideas must be bad.

Conclusion: The premier should abandon the goal of lowering taxes without reducing government services.

Reasoning: The advisor who claims this goal is achievable was convicted of embezzlement in the past and is therefore untrustworthy.

Analysis: This argument is a textbook example of an ad hominem attack. Instead of addressing the advisor's economic math, the author attacks the advisor's character, which is a bit like ignoring a fire alarm because you don't like the person who installed it. Furthermore, the author makes a massive leap by concluding that because the advisor is untrustworthy, the goal itself is impossible. Look for an answer that identifies this shift from attacking a person to dismissing their entire position as false.