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

Reasons are:
draws a general conclusion - which is "So the old government was more tolerant of criticism by the press than the new one is." This may be a case that old goverment had prisoned even more than 30 journalist before 1994, but at the end of term of old party ( beginning of the 1994) most of them had been already afraid of the strict goverment regulations that has stop to criticize it and only 6 of them were imprisoned.
So, the old Gov may not be more tolerant of the criticism than the new one. Thus, the journalist's conclusion is general.

on the basis of a sample of only a few cases - the new goverment came recently [ so many cases could not occur since then] even if those cases count for 30 journalists.
_________________

the politician provides new evidence, so it is B

B is the ans. as the assumption of the journalist depends upon the imprisonment of 30 journalist , that the govt is intolerant, but the politician presented an evidence that undermined this assumption.
C - out of scope as the politician the does not doubt the accuracy of the imprisonment of 30 journalist
D- wrong as the politician did not imply that journalist is taking very few cases.
A,E -out of scope

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.

it is actually a new evidence the politician provided.

So B.

J's conclusion is that the new government has more serious reasons than the old government. The
old government has a 100% rate.

It is obvious that the logical error of J is that the absolute percentage of absolute is large. More rigorous if if the new government period of 1,000 reporters JJYY, the government has closed 13? 1.3% obviously can not be said to be more severe than 100%
A provides data for earlier periods. No such thing is wrong,
c question the accuracy of the evidence J The data is not allowed to say otherwise, but P does not question the accuracy.
D is somewhat confusing, but J does not commit a partial logic error.
E is also the same and has nothing to do with partiality.

Journalist's Conclusion: The old government was more tolerant of criticism by the press than the new one is.

Support for that Conclusion: Since new government, about thirty journalists per year have been imprisoned for criticizing the government. During the year 1994, under the old government, only six journalists were imprisoned for criticizing the government.

Assumption: The reason for the increase in journalists imprisoned per year is a difference in tolerance.

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

What the politician says indicates that the reason for the increase is not a difference in tolerance but rather an increase in the number of journalists who criticize the government.

(D) Pointing out that the argument illegitimately draws a general conclusion on the basis of a sample of only a few cases

This choice could be tempting, because the politician does mention a difference in numbers, but the difference that the politician mentions is the difference between the number of journalists who criticized the previous government the number who criticize the current government. The politician does not dispute the validity of the numbers that the journalist uses to support the conclusion and does not claim that they are not representative of what is occurring. The politician's point is that, even though those numbers are correct and even though those numbers accurately represent what has occurred, the journalist's conclusion is not valid.

(E) Stating that the argument treats information about some members of a group as if it applied to all members of that group

Even through what the politician says about journalists' routinely criticizing the current government could be taken as indicating that the 30 journalists imprisoned per year does not include all journalists who criticize the current government, the politician does not actually make the case that the journalist's argument is flawed because not all journalists who criticize the government are imprisoned, and the politician does not otherwise indicate that the journalist treats information about some journalists as if it applied to all journalists.

(B) Introducing evidence that undermines an assumption of the journalist’s argument

(B) describes exactly how the politician challenges the argument. By indicating that criticism of the government by journalists has increased, the politician attacks the assumption that the reason for the increase in imprisonment of journalists is that the current government is less tolerant of criticism than the previous government was. The politician attacks that assumption by presenting an alternative cause, increase in criticism, for the observed effect, increase in number of journalist imprisoned.
_________________