Politician: The mandatory jail sentences that became law two years ago for certain crimes have enhanced the integrity of our system of justice, for no longer are there two kinds of justice, the kind dispensed by lenient judges and the kind dispensed by severe ones. Public advocate: But with judges stripped of discretionary powers, there can be no leniency even where it would be appropriate. So juries now sometimes acquit a given defendant solely because the jurors feel that the mandatory sentence would be too harsh. Those juries, then, do not return an accurate verdict on the defendant' s guilt. This is why it is imperative that the legislation instituting mandatory jail sentences be repealed. The public advocate responds to the politician's argument by doing which one of the following? ['arguing that leniency is not a trait of individuals but that, rather, it is a property of certain kinds of decisions', 'charging that the politician exaggerated the severity of a problem in order to justify a sweeping solution', "claiming that the politician's evidence, properly analyzed, has no bearing on the conclusion the politician derives from it", "arguing that an analysis of the consequences of certain legislation undermines the politician's conclusion"]