It doesn’t matter what would be politically expedient. We care about whether or not it would benefit visitors, which we have no reason to believe has anything to do with politics.

Even if that’s true, it still benefited consumers. The politician concludes about how privatizing national parks would benefit visitors, so we don’t care about social problems privatization may cause.

We don’t care whether the visitors know the parks might be privatized. We care whether privatization would benefit them, which we have no reason to believe is tied to knowledge.

It would still benefit visitors. This agrees with the politician’s conclusion.

Privatizing telecommunications benefitted consumers through increased competition, but that wouldn’t happen with national parks since there’s so little competition in the industry. Thus, the politician’s appeal to a supposedly analogous case isn’t valid.