Passage Summary: A politician argues that we should ignore what a guy named Kuyler says because Kuyler is a hypocrite; he argues against government contracts while his own company makes a lot of money from them.

Conclusion: The audience was right to be unpersuaded by Kuyler's argument.

Reasoning: Kuyler's argument suggested that government contracts are improper, yet Kuyler's own company has many lucrative contracts with the government.

Analysis: The politician is committing a classic 'ad hominem' attack, specifically the 'tu quoque' or appeal to hypocrisy. Instead of addressing the logical merits of Kuyler's argument about government contracts, the politician attacks Kuyler’s personal behavior. Even if Kuyler is a massive hypocrite, his argument could still be logically sound and valid. Look for an answer that points out the politician is attacking the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. Just because the messenger is flawed doesn't mean the message is wrong.