It is easy to see that the board of directors of the construction comp

EXPLANATION FROM Fox LSAT

Starting an argument with “it is easy to see” does not increase my confidence about the believability of what follows. It makes the argument sound like bullshit. And the rest of the argument doesn’t disappoint me—my bullshit meter is pegged. The evidence is about Wagston’s staff. And the conclusion is about the entire Goddamn board of directors! That’s not okay.

A) Yeah, exactly. Just because Wagston’s staff is dirty doesn’t mean everyone’s dirty.

B) Uh, no. It’s possible that any bribery is bad enough to prove that Wagston’s staff is dirty. This definitely isn’t as big of a problem as A was.

C) Haha, no. On this question, it’s not horrible to assume that “bribery” and “corruption” are equal. It’s a much worse problem to accuse everyone on the board of corruption because of the actions of a possibly limited group.

D) The argument doesn’t “presume without providing justification” that Wagston’s staff is corrupt. The argument provides evidence that they engaged in bribery! Furthermore, the argument didn't necessarily accuse all of Wagston's staff.

E) No, the conclusion of the argument is about character, so it’s okay to present evidence and logic about character.

The answer is A, because it’s not cool to call the entire board corrupt on the basis of a few wrongdoers on one board member’s staff.
_________________

A seems correct because to replace whole board argument need to establish that whole board is corrupt.

"There are many instances of bribery by various persons on the staff of board member Wagston that are a matter of public record."

The statement sounds a bit weird: "....the staff of board member <Wagston> that are a matter of public record." What is "Wagston" doing in between "board member" and "that"? I think "that" is referring to "instances of bribery", but still the sentence structure isn't so clear..

"Wagston" is the surname of the board member.

In other words, the board member is "board member Wagston."

So, the sentence communicates that "board member Wagston" has a staff and that there are instances of bribery by persons (people) on that staff that are a matter of public record.
_________________

It makes sense now. Thank you so much MartyTargetTestPrep