Question

lobbyist for the logging company: im asking you to help encourage congress to pass that bill to provide subsidies to western logging companies for selective cutting of 10,000 acres of federal timber land. environmentalist: i dont see how you can seriously ask any of us for our help. you are asking our grandchildren to live in a world in which they will never see a tree, never spot a deer, never smell the sweet scent of pine needles. do you have any idea how bad it would be to live this way? no trees means no wildlife. how can you defend the destruction of the land? land is precious; forests are precious; our grandchildren are precious. i dont understand how you can ask us to pick up the banner of desolation. multiple choice 2 points post hoc ergo propter hoc equivocation straw man ad hominem

Explanation:

The environmentalist's argument is distorted by the lobbyist. The lobbyist presents an extreme and inaccurate version of the environmentalist's stance, which is a straw - man fallacy. The environmentalist is concerned about the destruction of land and its impact on future generations, but the lobbyist misrepresents this as an all - or - nothing view about trees.

Answer:

Straw Man