Invalid Arguments about LA's
"It was Illogical"
Consider the argument, "pass is a bad bid, therefore is not a logical alternative." That was a reasonable argument in the 1997 laws. It is not easily defended in the 2007 laws. Roughly, one could try to argue that something is a bad bid and therefore that class of players would not select it and most would not even consider it. However, if a poll has already shown that some consider it and some select it, then it is illogical to conclude otherwise.
Now consider the argument "I would never consider passing, therefore pass is not a logical alternative." This is a somewhat reasonable argument. Prior to making a poll, if you would not consider a bid, that makes the bid much less likely to be a logical alternative. A director might not bother doing a poll precisely for that reason.
However, if 50% of players would not consider passing, then passing can nonetheless be a logical alternative. Put another way, the fact that you would not consider passing with a hand is perfectly compatible with the idea that a significant proportion of players would consider passing with the hand.
To use the analogy, if you thought one singer was much better than another, you would guess that other people would have roughly the same opinion. Essentially, you would be using yourself to predict the results of a poll. But once the poll is done, it is silly to use your own single opinion to negate the poll results.