Passage Summary: The author thinks we should stop a plan for mail-in voting simply because we have always voted in person in the past and it's a 'sacred' tradition.

Conclusion: The city should reject the proposal to allow mail-in voting.

Reasoning: Voting is a sacred democratic right that has traditionally always been performed in person rather than by mail.

Analysis: This argument is a textbook example of an 'Appeal to Tradition' fallacy. The author assumes that because a practice has a long history, that history itself justifies its continuation. There is no evidence provided that mail-in voting actually harms the 'sacred' nature of the vote or the democratic process; the author simply relies on the fact that it's different from the status quo. Look for an answer that identifies this flaw—specifically, that the argument treats the historical way of doing things as the only acceptable way to do them.