Without information that could only have come from someone present at the secret meeting between the finance minister and the leader of the opposition party, the newspaper story that forced the finance minister to resign could not have been written. No one witnessed the meeting, however, except the minister’s aide. It is clear, therefore, that the finance minister was ultimately brought down, not by any of his powerful political enemies, but by his own trusted aide.

The argument commits which one of the following errors of reasoning?

(A) drawing a conclusion on the basis of evidence that provides equally strong support for a competing conclusion

(B) assuming without warrant that if one thing cannot occur without another thing’s already having occurred, then the earlier thing cannot occur without bringing about the later thing

(C) confusing evidence that a given outcome on one occasion was brought about in a certain way with evidence that the same outcome on a different occasion was brought about in that way

(D) basing its conclusion on evidence that is almost entirely irrelevant to the point at issue

(E) treating evidence that a given action contributed to bringing about a certain effect as though that evidence established that the given action by itself was sufficient to bring about that effect
_________________

"To hell with circumstances; I create opportunities." - Bruce Lee

I am between E and B but, choose ^ B ^ here.

A.
Evidence remains the same but conclusion will be different if opposing leader leaked the information.

late but A