Ruth: To become a politician, a person should be required to have a

Ruth: To become a politician, a person should be required to have a diversity of experience. The more diverse one’s experience, the more one will understand the need for compromise.

Stephanie: To be worthy of public trust, it is not enough, as you suggest that one simply have varied experience. Such a person would not necessarily be worthy of public trust.

Ruth- people should be required to have a diversity of experience in order to be a politician---> diversity of experience is a necessary condition

Stephanie- it is not sufficient to have varied experience

Ruth says 'diversity of experience' should be necessary, and Stephanie's response is to say that it's not sufficient. Furthermore, Ruth is talking about a requirement for being a politician, not about a requirement for meriting public trust. So Stephanie attacks a much broader, and therefore more vulnerable, argument than the one Ruth actually makes.

Which one of the following most accurately describes a flaw in the reasoning in Stephanie’s response to Ruth’s statements?

A) The response simply asserts a point of view opposite to Ruth’s without giving reasons for it - incorrect; Stephanie doesn't actually assert a view opposite to Ruth's; she asserts a view opposite to what she mistakenly thinks Ruth is saying.
B) The response fails to provide evidence for its assumption that experience is not beneficial to the practice of politics- incorrect; Stephanie never says so.
C) The response attributes to Ruth a view that is more vulnerable to criticism than any she actually expresses -Correct
D) The response fails to make a needed distinction between personal experience and relevant professional experience- Out of scope
E) The response fails to provide evidence for its assumption that flexibility is unimportant in the practice of politics- irrelevant- flexibility