Is Senator Naismith making a convincing argument? Why or why not?

It is not convincing

Explanation:

Senator Naismith said "Fecal Transplants will make people sick. My evidence is that I think poop is gross, and everyone knows that poop does not contain anything healthy."

This argument is not convincing because

1. Senator Naismith's evidence is based on his thought, not scientific research. This is evident when he said, "I think poop is gross."

2. He committed a fallacy of hasty generalization when he said "everyone knows that poop does not contain anything healthy."

Hence, the argument is not convincing.

a is the answer because it just is