Passage Summary: Benson wants to limit city growth to maintain quality of life, but Willett argues that because this idea has been rejected before and isn't original, it should be rejected again.

Conclusion: The proposed zoning regulations to restrict city growth should be opposed.

Reasoning: Similar arguments for restricting growth were rejected by the city council in the past, and the current proposal contains no new ideas.

Analysis: Willett’s argument is a classic example of failing to address the actual merits of a proposal. Just because an idea was rejected five or ten years ago doesn't mean the city's circumstances haven't changed enough to make it a great idea today. Willett also commits a 'novelty' fallacy in reverse, assuming that because an idea isn't 'new,' it must be invalid. Look for an answer that highlights how Willett ignores the possibility that current conditions differ from past conditions.