Passage Summary: A critic says zoos are bad because they use animals for fun, but the author says we shouldn't listen to him because he owns pets, which is basically the same thing.

Conclusion: Weingarten's assertion that keeping animals in zoos is unethical should be dismissed.

Reasoning: Weingarten is inconsistent because he supports pet ownership, which involves the same conditions—unnatural environments for human amusement—that he uses to condemn zoos.

Analysis: The author is attempting to discredit a position by pointing out the proponent's hypocrisy, a classic 'ad hominem' flaw. Even if Weingarten is a total hypocrite regarding his own pets, that doesn't actually mean his logical points about zoos are incorrect. When you see an argument attacking the person's character or behavior rather than the logic of their claim, you've found the flaw. Look for an answer that describes this shift from the merit of the argument to the consistency of the person making it.