Passage Summary: An argument is made to knock down a train station because the people who want to save it are short-sighted, and keeping old buildings gets in the way of making money.

Conclusion: The proposal to tear down the old train station should be approved.

Reasoning: The group opposing the demolition is biased and lacks economic foresight, and keeping old buildings prevents the development necessary for a healthy economy.

Analysis: This argument commits a classic ad hominem fallacy by attacking the character and motives of the historical society rather than addressing their specific arguments for preservation. To find a parallel flaw, look for an answer choice that rejects a position simply because the person holding that position is described as biased, untrustworthy, or having poor character. The logic here incorrectly assumes that if the source is flawed, the message must also be wrong. It's a bit like saying we should ignore a doctor's health advice just because they don't exercise—the advice might still be perfectly sound.