When I was practicing law, opponents would often make a passionate, well structured, articulate, stupid arguments. I always assumed that the other lawyer actually worked himself up into believing his work. And I would always wonder whether I was missing something, and whether the fact finder (judge or jury) would buy into the fllim flam. You know what? Those arguments always lost. Always. The argument that removing a tree that is in play (not a border tree that opens up an out of bounds) and changing nothing else can make a hole easier is such an argument.