The plan to cut transit funding is flawed because it assumes that savings from reduced service will not reduce ridership; it fails to consider long-term effects.

• A. False causation
• B. Circular reasoning
• C. Failing to exclude other possibilities
• D. Ad hominem

Answer: (C)

The key idea here is spotting a flaw where an argument relies on a single, unexamined assumption and ignores other plausible outcomes that could change the result. In this plan, savings are expected from reduced service, but the argument assumes that this will not affect ridership. That assumption is questionable because cutting service often leads to fewer riders, which can reduce fare revenue and potentially wipe out the expected savings over time. It also leaves out long-term effects like the need for more subsidies, changes in public satisfaction, or shifts in travel patterns that could undermine the plan’s goals. By not considering these alternative outcomes, the argument rests on an incomplete view of cause and effect.

This isn’t about false causation, circular reasoning, or attacking someone’s character; it’s about neglecting other possibilities that could change the outcome, which is precisely captured by choosing the description that highlights failing to exclude other possibilities.