These options may or may not be good ones, but the point is that the way this argument has presented the choice as an either/or is misleading.
By this logic, the argument could have worked if the author had mentioned whether the choices we we're given were one of the few good options.
Americans are faced with a choice: either we open our borders or we turn our backs on the needs of desperate people. Clearly, the only ethical course is to open our borders.
This does give the author a negative view from the reader as there is more options, but we are only given two. We feel trapped by the author which could be a convincing decision or a damaging one.
A generalization tells us that something is true for a group of cases that have something in common.
This sentence interested me because I always viewed the word generalization as a negative definition. This is because this word is usually used in a negative context. Which is ironic for this context.