Mullen has proposed to raise taxes on the rich, who made so much money

Lets analyse the argument here :
Mullen’s tax records show heavy investment in business during that time and large profits.
Hence, Mullen proposal to raise taxes on the rich do not deserve our consideration.

Ques :The flawed reasoning in the argument above is most similar to the flawed reasoning in which one of the following?

Pre-thinking : The previous record of Mullen's show heavy investment and large profits so Mullen today is not right in increasing the taxes.
The author is assuming that since previous records show the figures mentioned, Mullen must be having surplus of funds and hence today also this conclusion holds and Mullen still has lot of funds so an increase in funds by increasing the taxes should not be considered by Mullen.

Let's analyse the choices now :
(A) Do not vote for Smith’s proposed legislation to subsidize child care for working parents; Smith is a working parent.
(B) Do not put any credence in Dr. Han’s recent proposal to ban smoking in all public places; Dr. Han is a heavy smoker. - Both A and B are incorrect. Options A and B both arrive at the conclusion of not voting or not putting credence on the present data : Smith is a working parent and Han is a heavy smoker. The conclusion is not based on past record and hence not similar to the argument.

(C) The previous witness’s testimony ought to be ignored; he has been convicted of both forgery and mail fraud. - Correct : Yes, the conclusion is made on the past data and assumes that whatever has been on record is true. Assuming that witness a liar today also and he is lying hence his past records are so.

(D) Board member Timm’s proposal to raise the salaries of the company’s middle managers does not deserve to be considered; Timm’s daughter is a middle manager at the company’s headquarters. - Incorrect as this is completely on a different analogy compared to the argument.

(E) Dr. Wasow’s analysis of the design of this bridge should not be taken seriously; after all, Dr. Wasow has previously only designed factory buildings.Incorrect; here the conclusion made about Dr Wasow is based on the past data but there is no relation between what he did previously and what he is capable of doing next. The argument in the ques say that because Mullen has so much funds last year (assumed by the author on basis of data), these funds will be true for today (assumption) and so an increase in tax in not required (to increase the funds for Mullen as Mullen has sufficient funds).