Governor Dupont is an outspoken critic of agricultural I I, subsidies

Governor Dupont is an outspoken critic of agricultural I I, subsidies for farmers in his state.
However, a local paper recently published documents proving that Dupont received $500,000 in federal money to buy equipment for use in his apple orchards.

Conclusion:
Therefore, Dupont should be forced to return the money or should resign from office.
Assumption:
There are laws pertaining to the mentioned scenario.
If there are no laws then authors points doesn't hold and hence D need not to obliged to comply with what author says.

If true, which of the following statements would reveal the most serious flaw in this argument?

A. There is no precedent for the resignation of a governor from office in the state .. [doesnt maters whether there are any precedent or not]
B. The governor's hypocrisy is not punishable by law. [Yes.]
C. Since its publication of the article, the newspaper has lost the documents showing Dupont's receipt of money from the government. [They may get a duplicate of it]
D. Dupont accepted the $500,000 before beginning his term as governor.[Tempting but B is better than D because everything comes down to law. Not to a personal view.]
E. Farmers in the state have raised the prices charged for crops by more than 50 percent, while their operating costs have remained the same.[Irrelevant]

Can I know the source of this question?

I think B strengthens the argument rather than finding a flaw in it. If hypocrisy is not punishable by law then the only option left is taking moral responsibility and returning the money and stepping down - which is exactly what the argument proposes. In a flaw question we have to find a premise or an assumption and invalidate it so that the entire conclusion falls apart.

What am I overlooking here? Can some expert help?

Thanks Karishma for the help.

But don't you think that a change of heart after being elected a governor is too big an assumption for D to be the correct choice?

As far as I know the question comes from 800score that namely is not a good resource, at least for the verbal side.

As Karishma pointed out: not a good question. Moreover, it is labed as easy

As I said in my post before - if I HAD TO choose, I would choose (D) by stretching my imagination. The point I was making was that in any case, I would not choose (B). Also, since the question is not up to the mark, there is no point dwelling on it. I would suggest you to move on.

Agreed! D for me as well. No way would I chose B

i completely agree with you on this. I narrowed down to A, B and D, but then B talks about a fact if a crime is punishable by law. Nowhere in the argument is it stated that taking FEDERAL money is a crime. Most importantly, its more about an ethical ground than a criminal ground. I would go with D too, i don't approve the standard of the question though.

This question is a bit absurd in its answer choices. I haven't run across any CR answer choices that are as pointed in their conclusion as this one, and be right. Usually the answer choices with incredibly pointed language are the choices that are wrong. Bit thrown off by this one in not just the conclusion in the question stem. Also, I think I was expecting more of "the argument assumes" setup.

This is a poor question for all of the reasons others have already listed. Nothing in the prompt talks about the governor being punished by law , the question is moral and not legal. I also picked D as the best of bad answers

Hello from the GMAT Club VerbalBot!

Thanks to another GMAT Club member, I have just discovered this valuable topic, yet it had no discussion for over a year. I am now bumping it up - doing my job. I think you may find it valuable (esp those replies with Kudos).

Want to see all other topics I dig out? Follow me (click follow button on profile). You will receive a summary of all topics I bump in your profile area as well as via email.