The other action or option of belief is usually the one being argued for. The reason this argument is valid, yet not sound is that there are some other options which can be used to prevent national bankruptcy. If we restrict publication of Magazines such as the Star and the National Enquirer, then the first Amendment will be weakened and the whole country will be controlled by the Government. If Guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. It is probable that both equally influence the development.
Some examples are even a bit brutal.
Here is a political ad aired by the Lyndon Johnson campaign in 1964 which limits us to two choices - to love each other or die. The idea here is that the reasoning which justifies one action will also justify other actions, ones which will be detrimental or undesirable. If students are allowed to influence this choice, they will see themselves as running the school. This will lead to a breakdown of order and discipline, and pretty soon there will be no learning at all in the University. In this sense it involves picking the weakest or most emotionally negative form of an opponents argument or position and attacking it.