In his most recent speech, my opponent, Governor Smith,

Question

In his most recent speech, my opponent, Governor Smith, accused me of having distorted the facts, misrepresenting his own positions, suppressing information, and deliberately lying to the people.

Which of the following possible responses by this speaker would be LEAST relevant to his dispute with Governor Smith?
A) Governor Smith would not have begun to smear me if he did not sense that his own campaign was in serious trouble
B) Governor Smith apparently misunderstood my characterization of his position, so I will attemp to state more clearly my understanding of it
C) At the time I made those remarks, certain key facts were not available, but new information uncovered by my staff does support the position I took at that time
D) I can only wish Governor Smith had specified those points he considered to be lies so that I could have responded to them now
E) With regard to the allegedly distorted facts, the source of my information is a Department of Transportation publication entitled "Safe Driving"

aspire · Answer

I will also go by A.

It does not matter to know what led Governor Smith to make the accusations. I believe that the speaker should be more concerned with the accusations made and how he can refute them. Based on this line of thinking, I think A is least relevant.

anandnk · Answer

I will go with C here ( I may be crazy )

At that time whatever the speaker told could not have been justifiable because key factors were not available. Hence governor accued him. In order to make a solid point the speaker should not bring in this point because the governor could come out say well I didnt know the facts either and you also claim that you didnt know the facts as well.

monarc · Answer

I think C

C is LEAST relevant because the Governor accused him that the speaker had MISREPRESENTED the GOVERNOR"S position. So in order to respond to him, he must say that he did not misrepresent but that It was his genuine IDEA or POSITION.

anandnk · Answer

Hmm,

A is getting popular. Aspire's explanation sounds good.

Anand.

Paul · Answer

OA: A. Nice explanation Aspire. Yes, this is an LSAT question
The question stem asks us to focus on the "dispute" between the two opponents. What will be relevant to it will be those items that affect the merits of the issues or perhaps those that affect the credibility of the parties. Choice C and E both mention items -- facts and their source -- that would be relevant to the substantive issues. Choices B and D are legitimate attempts to clarify the issues and so are relevant. Choice A is neither relevant to the issues nor to the credibility (eg where did the facts come from) of the debaters. Choice A is the least relevant because it is an  ad hominem  attack of the illegitimate sort

anandnk · Answer

Hi Paul,

Let me know what you chose. I chose A first and then since u posted the CR I changed my mind. I would like to know what you chose.

Anand.

Paul · Answer

Hey Anandnk. I chose A. Each of the above claims do respond or attempt to clarify one of the issues at hand. However, A seems like a personal attack which will not solve the problem at hand. I did hesitate between A and C though but since A was a unwarranted personal attack, I picked it. Sorry I had to edit my explanation.

In his most recent speech, my opponent, Governor Smith,

Prep Toolkit

Top 5 GMAT Debrief Videos

615 to 715 in 15 Days (Ria's Strategies)

More than Quant/Verbal Abilities: Speed vs. Accuracy

745 with Only Self-Prep and GMAT Club

From 555 to 765: 210-point Improvement

Perfect 805 Score Debrief by Julia

My Rewards