Journalist: In late 1994, the present government of the Republic of Bellam came into power. Each year since then, about thirty journalists have been imprisoned for printing articles that criticize the government. In 1994, under the old government, only six journalists were imprisoned for criticizing the government. So the old government was more tolerant of criticism by the press than the new one is.

Politician: But in 1994 only six journalists criticized the government, and now journalists routinely do.


The politician challenges the journalist’s argument by doing which of the following?
(A) Presenting data that extend further into the past than the journalist’s data
(B) Introducing evidence that undermines an assumption of the journalist’s argument
(C) Questioning the accuracy of the evidence presented in support of the journalist’s conclusion
(D) Pointing out that the argument illegitimately draws a general conclusion on the basis of a sample of only a few cases
(E) Stating that the argument treats information about some members of a group as if it applied to all members of that group


I don't understand Politician's remark . Is that a challenge ? he just said "...and now journalists routinely do."

I don't get whether its challenge ....how come it be a challenge ? it looks to me he is supporting the journalist's remark that "....Each year since then" routine task.

I'm confused here. please help at this part.

but this is not a fake thing journalist arguing ...its truly 30 journalists imprisoned each year since 1994. he is not falsifying the things . so, the word "routinely criticize" is a bad word by politician as the the data given by journalists is true.

No. its not about percentages.

see the remark of the politician the word "..routinely criticize.."

again read the politician's comment

Politician: But in 1994 only six journalists criticized the government, and now journalists routinely do.

what are possible implication of "routinely" ?

I picked up B .......my first correct option ........

Above explanations are satisfactory ......

Had to be betwee B and C ...went for B by POE!!

B for sure

Politician's argument was
But in 1994 only six journalists criticized the government, and now journalists routinely do.

So here the politician is providing evidence on top of the data provided by the journalist. he is highlighting the % of journalists doing criticism is higher in 1994 that that of after 1994. Thus he challenges the conclusion of the journalist by proving the new government is more tolerant of criticism that the older one.

Bt in b .."....So the old government was more tolerant of criticism by the press than the new one is" --- i think this is conclusion not assumption.
Plz suggest.

(A) Presenting data that extend further into the past than the journalist’s data... DATA DO NOT EXTEND FURTHER...DO THEY?
(B) Introducing evidence that undermines an assumption of the journalist’s argument
(C) Questioning the accuracy of the evidence presented in support of the journalist’s conclusion. NO SIGN OF INACCURACY (SAME DATA)
(D) Pointing out that the argument illegitimately draws a general conclusion on the basis of a sample of only a few cases ( SAMPLE IS STILL THE SAME )
(E) Stating that the argument treats information about some members of a group as if it applied to all members of that group (IT'S NOT THE CASE CLEARLY)

B....the Politician is responding to the Journalists assumption.