Pole of the function $f(z)=\frac{z}{(1-e^z).\sin z}.$ Let , $f(z)$ be a meromorphic function given by $$f(z)=\frac{z}{(1-e^z).\sin z}.$$Prove or disprove that " $z=0$ is a pole of order $2$ ".
1st Argument :
Firstly we can rewrite the given function as $\displaystyle f(z)=\frac{z}{\sin z}.\frac{1}{1-e^z}$. Now $\displaystyle \frac{z}{\sin z}$ has a removable singularity at $z=0$. Also , $\displaystyle \frac{1}{1-e^z}$ has a pole of order $1$ at $z=0$. So finally the function has a pole of order $1$ at $z=0$.
2nd Argument :
But we know that  " A function $f$ has a pole of order $m$ if and only if $(z-a)^mf(z)$ has a removable singularity at $z=a$."
So here , if we can show that $\displaystyle z^2f(z)=\frac{z^3}{(1-e^z).\sin z}=g(z)(say)$ has a removable singularity at $z=0$ then we can show that $f$ has a pole of order $2$ at $z=0$.
Now , as $\displaystyle \lim_{z\to 0}z.g(z)=0$ , so $g$ has a removable singularity  at $z=0$ and consequently $f$ has a pole of order $2$ at $z=0$.
I'm confused that which is correct ? I could not find any mistake in both of my arguments. Can anyone detect the fallacy ?

Your first argument is correct. It has a pole of order 1. 
For the second argument, where you go wrong is jumping to the conclusion that since $\lim_{z\rightarrow 0}g(z) =  0$ $g(z)$ has a removable singularity and $f(z)$ has a pole order 2. Think about what would happen if you instead let $g(z) = z^{27}f(z).$ You'd still have $g(z)\rightarrow 0.$ Does that mean that $g$ has a 27
'th order pole?
