Passage Summary: Someone says we should not pass a law, but they have been inconsistent in the past, so their current excuse is a lie. Since they will not tell us the 'real' reason, it must be a bad one, so we should just pass the law.

Conclusion: The legislature should approve the act.

Reasoning: The opponent's stated reason is hypocritical and therefore not her 'real' reason, and since her real reason is unknown, it must be weak.

Analysis: This argument is a train wreck of logical fallacies, primarily an ad hominem attack mixed with an appeal to ignorance. The legislator attacks the colleague's character and motives rather than addressing the actual substance of the 'deterring investment' argument. It's the political equivalent of saying 'you're a liar, so I'm right,' which is never a winning logical move. Look for an answer that highlights the failure to address the argument's merits or the unfair dismissal of a position based on the speaker's hidden motives.