Passage Summary: A council president says we should ignore a new rule against dishonest sales tactics just because the guy proposing the rule used to be dishonest himself.

Conclusion: Councilmember Smith's proposal to ban 'bait-and-switch' tactics does not deserve any consideration.

Reasoning: Smith is a hypocrite because he previously owned a business that was famous for using the very 'bait-and-switch' tactics he is now trying to prohibit.

Analysis: The president's argument is a textbook example of an 'ad hominem' attack, specifically a 'tu quoque' (appeal to hypocrisy). Instead of addressing the merits of the ordinance itself, the president attacks the character and past behavior of the person proposing it. Just because a former smoker tells you that smoking is bad for your health doesn't mean the health advice is wrong. Look for an answer that points out the failure to address the substance of the proposal by focusing instead on the proposer's history.