I honestly can't tell which one follows the logic of the stimuli as they are all either incomplete or different in the flaw

Jessie, the reasoning in the problem's argument is flawed because it is not objectively about the old train station itself (the plus and minus of the demolition), but is directed against the people of a group who are in general opposed to any demolition. Similarly, the answer C's argument is flawed because it is not objectively about whether you really need a haircut more than 1x a month, but is directed against a group of people (beauticians) who recommend a different haircut frequency.

The rest of the choices present arguments that are logical and objectively about the positions taken.

Okay, I think I understand, thank you

You are welcome Jessie. Please help us rate the app in the App Store. Thank you.

However, (C) does not paint a picture of the threat that a failure to concur may present, as does the example: "preserving old buildings creates an impediment. . ."

I saw the ad hominem circumstantial, but that missing component threw me off.

The answer to this question needs to be appended with something like: "vanity pilfers the pocketbook."