This would fit a stimulus where T comes in with extra support for S’s position. Like “oh yeah here are some more reasons why 17 year olds should be able to vote!”

T’s beef isn’t about what rights are, but about when it makes sense to say one right should follow from another.

That’s a real distinction, it’s just not at all relevant to this argument. In fact, the concept of obligation doesn’t appear anywhere in the stimulus.

S claims that if you’re old enough to fight, you’re old enough to vote. Based on that claim, S concludes 17 year olds should be able to vote (because they’re old enough to fight).

T challenges the truth of that claim by saying “that would only work if fighting were the same kind of activity as voting” and then pointing out a bunch of differences between the two.

(E) essentially asks us to commit the lack of support v. false conclusion flaw. T only argues that S’s reasoning is flawed, which is different from arguing that 17 year olds should not be allowed to vote.