A political party considered by many citizens extreme

Official Explanation

Correct Answer: C - If the political party's belief about the source of its public image is correct (i.e., "it is stereotyped simply because" [i.e., only because] of its position on military action and carbon emissions), any other political party that holds these two views (or more extreme versions of them) will have the same public image (or worse). If it can be shown that another political party hold these same two views (or views citizens consider more extreme) and yet this other party is popular, the argument is weakened. Note that the citizens do not consider the 50% carbon reduction extreme because they view it as too small but because they view it as too large (i.e., "a cut far more severe than most citizens want").

A. In order to undermine the original argument, we must show that a popular party supports both preemptive war and 50+% reductions in carbon emissions. It could be that the electorate will tolerate preemptive war, unless it is accompanied by large carbon cuts—in which case the public cannot tolerate the political party anymore.

B. This answer provides information that is not relevant to the country in question. Although we might be tempted to believe that the attack on the neighboring country changed the attitudes toward preemptive war among citizens of the country in question, we cannot make this assumption, especially since the original question explicitly states that preemptive war "is unpopular" among the despised party's constituents. Further, this does not directly address the carbon reduction issue.

C. This answer shows that a party that is even more extreme on the two issues in question is popular. Consequently, it cannot "simply" be the unpopular party's stance on these two issues that causes the poor public image. Note as well that "unilateral attacks to defend the homeland" include preemptive attacks.

D. The original question implies that the party with a bad public image is unpopular because of its stance against preemptive military action and for environmentalism. If anything, this answer strengthens the original argument instead of weakening it since it provides some evidence that the party's positions on these two issues are a source of unpopularity.

E. This answer only deals with the "preemptive military action" and not the reduction in carbon emissions. Since the original argument depends "simply" (i.e., only) on these two issues and yet this answer only addresses one (and it addresses the one issue by referring back to 20 years ago, when the electorate and country no doubt were much different), this answer does not seriously weaken the original argument.