Journalist: In late 1994, the present government of the Republic of Bellam came into power. Each year since then, about thirty journalists have been imprisoned for printing articles that criticize the government. In 1994, under the old government, only six journalists were imprisoned for criticizing the government. So the old government was more tolerant of criticism by the press than the new one is.

Politician: But in 1994 only six journalists criticized the government, and now journalists routinely do.

The politician challenges the journalist’s argument by doing which of the following?

(A) Presenting data that extend further into the past than the journalist’s data
(B) Introducing evidence that undermines an assumption of the journalist’s argument
(C) Questioning the accuracy of the evidence presented in support of the journalist’s conclusion
(D) Pointing out that the argument illegitimately draws a general conclusion on the basis of a sample of only a few cases
(E) Stating that the argument treats information about some members of a group as if it applied to all members of that group

Well, in 1994, the percentage is 6/6 = 100%. The Old Gov "kills" 100% those who dare defy.

After 1994, about 30 die every year, but "rountinely do" mean that a lot of jounarlists do nowday (a lot, like 100s), so the percentage is < 100%.

Thus actually, the new Gov is more tolerant than the old one.

This is what B implies.

B rules

Let me help you with this one. This is the flaw in the reasoning question.

(E) Stating that the argument treats information about some members of a group as if it applied to all members of that group. In other words, it means that the argument contains the error of taking small examples of one group and treating these example to support a general conclusion about that group. To illustrate, "two of my best friends went to watch a soccer match. Therefore, all of my best friends went to watch that soccer match." This error is called over-generalization.

(C) Questioning the accuracy of the evidence presented in support of the journalist’s conclusion. This choice is incorrect because the politician accepts the evidence from the journalist that in 1994, only six journalists were imprisoned for criticizing the government.
_________________

Dear Jai

You read the politician's argument too fast, I guess. Thus, you misunderstood the idea of the politician a bit.

Politician: But in 1994 only six journalists criticized the government, and now journalists routinely do

Note: routinely is frequently

Be careful with the blue part. What does he mean? The politician challenges the journalist who said more journalist imprisoned, less tolerant the Government was. It means the journalist just focused on the number of journalists imprisoned, but the politician does not agree with that. He maintained that the number of journalists imprisoned may be THE SAME (6 people), but these journalists criticized the government MORE FREQUENTLY. --> Thus, there were more cases of journalists imprisoned than in 1994.

Let see E:
E is not the main point that the politician wanted to convey. In fact, he may agree that six journalists imprisoned is a total group (100% as you said). He just criticized the assumption of the journalist who concerned about the number rather than the frequency.

Hence, E is not the answer.

Hope it helps.
_________________