This is too strong - the argument doesn’t need to assume that the only way to pass beneficial laws is to be less concerned. Its conclusion is only that they are currently not passing beneficial laws, and adding a new condition on how to pass a beneficial law isn’t necessary to get there.

The argument is not concerned with the notion of successful legislatures and doesn’t need to assume anything about them.

The argument is focused only on how to enact beneficial laws - not what happens once they’re enacted. It does not need to add conditions on constituents for how they can actually get these benefits.

This provides the necessary connection between being emotional and failing to meet the necessary condition for a beneficial law. If this were false, then the legislators today could still be passing beneficial laws even though they’re emotional while doing so.

This is too strong. The argument does not need a specific causal claim about what specific part of the legislators being emotional stops them from considering consequences. It only needs to note more generally that these legislators do not consider the consequences.