Even if Jamal does mean that Mary has no moral right to sell the business at this time, it wouldn't weaken the claim that his statements taken together are absurd. He’s still claiming that she has the right to sell anytime, but no right to sell at this time.

The argument is only addressing Mary’s rights. But even if her employees do have rights related to the sale of the business, it wouldn’t impact Mary’s conclusion that Jamal’s statements are absurd because they’re contradictory.

Mary actually does provide evidence to support the claim that she has a legal right to sell the business— the fact that she’s its legitimate owner.

If Jamal is referring to a legal right in one statement and a moral right in the other, then his statements are not actually absurd when taken together. Mary can have the legal right to sell even though selling is not the right thing to do.

This the cookie-cutter “ad hominem” flaw, where the author attacks the source of an argument rather than the argument itself. Mary doesn’t make this mistake. She claims that Jamal’s statements are absurd when taken together, not that Jamal himself is absurd.