A proposed new law mandates that all public figures, including politicians and celebrities, must disclose their financial assets and liabilities annually. Proponents argue this will increase transparency and reduce corruption. Opponents claim such a law is an unwarranted invasion of privacy, arguing that public figures, like all citizens, have a right to financial privacy unless there is direct evidence of wrongdoing.
Correct: C
The opponents' argument is that public figures have a right to financial privacy 'unless there is direct evidence of wrongdoing.' This stance implies that privacy is an unqualified right that can only be breached *after* a specific transgression is proven. The flaw is that for public figures, particularly politicians, the public interest in transparency (to prevent wrongdoing) is often considered to qualify or limit their privacy rights, especially regarding financial matters that could be influenced by their public roles. Choice C accurately identifies this flaw: the opponents treat privacy as an absolute right, ignoring that for public figures, this right is often balanced against, and sometimes limited by, the public interest in accountability and transparency. Choice A points to a potential negative consequence of the law, not a flaw in the opponents' *reasoning*. Choice B is incorrect; the opponents do argue for incompatibility in this context. Choice D also describes a potential negative outcome of the law, not a flaw in the reasoning against it.