Passage Summary: The author thinks we should build a new coal plant because the only people complaining about it are the company's business rivals.

Conclusion: The proposed coal-burning plant ought to be approved.

Reasoning: No valid arguments against the plant have been made, as all opposing arguments came from competitors.

Analysis: The author is attacking the source of the arguments rather than the arguments themselves. For this logic to hold, the author must assume that arguments from a biased source (competitors) cannot be 'good' or valid arguments. Look for an answer that bridges the gap between the source's identity and the quality of their reasoning. It's a bit like saying a restaurant's food must be great just because the only people complaining are the owners of the bistro across the street.