The legislator questions his colleague’s reason for rejecting the act, but he never mentions any of her personal character traits. He also doesn’t assume that her professional viewpoint shares any of her personal character traits.

The legislator simply assumes that his colleague’s reason for rejecting the act is not genuine or persuasive. He then concludes that the act should be approved without addressing his colleague’s stated reason for rejecting it— that it will deter investment.

The legislator doesn't assume his colleague's opposition is in the minority; he never mentions how many legislators might support or oppose the act. Even if he did, he still fails to engage with his colleague’s argument, whether she’s in the minority or not.

The legislator never assumes that voters will oppose this legislation. In fact, he doesn’t say anything about voters at all. Instead, he assumes his colleague’s real reason for opposing the act is not persuasive, since she’s supported other acts that hurt investment.

The legislator doesn’t consider this, but it doesn’t matter. If the colleague does oppose the act simply due to constituents’ wishes, it would only strengthen the claim that her “real reason” isn’t persuasive. Either way, he still ignores her stated reason for rejecting the act.