S: People who are old enough to fight for their country are old enough to vote for the people who make decisions about war and peace.
S's Conclusion (so)
The government should acknowledge the right of 17 year olds to vote.
S's Evidence
The government clearly regards 17 olds as old enough to fight, and people old enough to fight are old enough to vote for the people who make decisions about war and peace.
T's Conclusion (Implicit)
Your conclusion might not be warranted.
T's Evidence
The argument only works if fighting and voting are the same, but clearly fighting requires strength / coordination / reflexes, whereas responsible voting requires deliberation / reasoning / knowledge.
Evaluate
Most of the time that we're asked to describe someone's Method of Response, it falls into one or more of these buckets:
- they point out a dubious assumption - they suggest an alternate explanation - they raise some overlooked consideration - they discuss faulty implications of someone's logic or plan
T's response seems to do #1 and #3. He's saying, and suggesting that this is a dubious assumption by raising the overlooked consideration that fighting requires a completely different set of attributes than does responsibly voting (and the former attributes are presumably more likely possessed by a 17 year old than are the latter attributes).
Goal
Let's look for any answer that matches. We should remind ourselves that T never said S's conclusion is wrong, he just undermines its persuasiveness by saying that S is analogizing two things that are quite distinct.