Passage Summary: A subscriber thinks Arnot is wrong about government reform because Arnot's argument is based on the shaky idea that the government is trustworthy.

Conclusion: Arnot's claim that government changes would fix social problems is definitely false.

Reasoning: Arnot's argument relies on the questionable assumption that the government can be trusted to act in the public's best interest.

Analysis: The subscriber is making a very common logical error: assuming that because an argument is weak, the conclusion must be false. Even if Arnot's premise about government trust is 'dubious,' it doesn't mean the proposed changes wouldn't actually work. The subscriber has successfully challenged the *strength* of Arnot's argument but has failed to prove the *falsity* of the conclusion. Look for an answer that identifies this confusion between a flawed argument and a false claim.