A recent poll showed that 96% of the country's animal owners were strongly against the placing of taxes on animal owning. The revenues collected from such a tax would be used to improve the health conditions of rescued animals. Therefore, the results of the final vote showing that 68% of the population are in favor of taxes for the owning of animals must have been incorrectly calculated or manipulated.
A major flaw in the argument above is that
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]As long as the conclusion can be logically supported by premises, an argument cannot be deemed flawed because it supports a certain position that it has described. On the contrary - an argument most often promotes some sort of position!
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]The second premise clearly states that the revenues from the taxes are intended to help rescued animals. Therefore, the statement in this answer choice is inaccurate since this information is not assumed, but purely factual.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]The argument is claiming the results are incorrect, and offers two possible explanations for this discrepancy - mistake or deceit. The author does not claim deceit is necessarily the correct explanation and therefore is not required to present evidence to support such a claim.
Incorrect.
[[snippet]]This answer choice is incorect since the personal opinions of the animal owners are definitely taken into account - they are represented by the poll mentioned in the first premise and as a part of the objecting votes in the general vote described in premise C.
Terrific work!
[[snippet]]The strong opposition (96% against) among animal owners can be explained by their bias - the fact that they would be the one to pay the tax. Therefore, they cannot serve as a suitable sample group of citizens, and a similar opposition cannot be expected in the greater population.