I got this in 1:15 and it was fairly clear to me so I hope I can help you out by telling you my reasoning
The core claim of the excerpt is:
In rejecting the plan, the President acted in the best interests of the nation. (This was a good, wise decision)
The justification given for this claim is:
- The president made this decision knowing he would face strong criticism for doing so. (Implication: it was not in his interest do do so. It is courageous of him to do so.)
- Those who place the nation's well-being above partisan interest will approve of this action. (Implication: acting against partisan interest is courageous AND in the nation's interest)
So the editorial gives evidence that the decision was courageous and concludes that because it was courageous, it was good for the nation (hence wise). But showing an action was courageous is not sufficient evidence to prove it is wise. A courageous action can nonetheless have bad results.
Likewise, a president may take an action that goes against narrow partisan interest, and this action may still have bad results. Sometimes, narrow partisan interest and national interest align.
Answer: B.
The editorial provides evidence of courage, but not of wisdom.
Quick edit to eliminate other answers:
(A) it confused a quality that is merely desirable in a political leader with a quality that is essential to effective political decision-making
This is somewhat close but there is no claim in the editorial that courage is essential to effective political decision-making.
(C) it ignores the likelihood that many citizens have no narrow partisan interest in the proposed election reform plan
If this was true, so what? Doesn't change the editorial's reasoning
(D) it overlooks the possibility that there was strong opposition to the parliament’s plan among members of the president’s own party
This would undermine the claim that the action was courageous, but it would not address whether the decision was in the best interest of the nation or not.
(E) it depends on the unwarranted assumption that any plan proposed by a parliament will necessarily serve only narrow partisan interests
Again, so what? Even if this was true, it would not address whether the decision was good or not.