Speaker 1: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation

Speaker 1: Those who oppose abortion upon demand make the foundation of their arguments the sanctity of human life, but this seeming bedrock assumption is actually as weak as shifting sand. And it is not necessary to invoke the red herring that many abortion opponents would allow that human life must sometimes be sacrificed for a great good, as in the fighting of a just war. There are counter-examples to the principle of sanctity of life which are even more embarrassing to abortion opponents. It would be possible to reduce the annual number of traffic fatalities to virtually zero by passing federal legislation mandating a nationwide fifteen mile-per-hour speed limit on all roads. You see, implicitly we have always been willing to trade off quantity of human life for quality.

Speaker 2: The analogy my opponent draws between abortion and traffic fatalities is weak. No one would propose such a speed limit. Imagine people trying to get to and from work under such a law, or imagine them trying to visit a friend or relatives outside their own neighborhoods, or taking in a sports event or a movie. Obviously such a law would be a disaster.

Which of the following best characterizes Speaker 2’s response to Speaker 1?

(A) His analysis of the traffic fatalities case actually supports the argument of Speaker 1.
(B) His analysis of the traffic fatalities case is an effective rebuttal of Speaker 1’s argument.
(C) His response provides a strong affirmative statement of his own position.
(D) His response is totally irrelevant to the issue raised by Speaker 1.
(E) His counter-argument attacks the character of Speaker 1 instead of the merits of Speaker 1’s argument.