Legislator claims that the crime rate has decreased because of the new law.
Analyst argues that the law may not be the reason for reduction in crime rate. As evidence, he provides examples of other comparable regions which also saw reduction in crime rate but new law was not introduced.
(A) pointing out that the legislator has provided no evidence of the reliability of the statistics on which the legislator’s conclusion is based
Analyst does not question the legislator's statistics. In fact, legislator does provide data on how much crime rate has reduced. Incorrect.
(B) arguing that the legislator has unreasonably concluded that one event has caused another without ruling out the possibility that both events are effects of a common cause
Analyst does not imply that there was a common cause for both - crime rate and new law. He argues that one did not cause the other. Incorrect.
(C) objecting that the statistics on which the legislator is basing his conclusion are drawn from a time period that is too short to yield a meaningful data sample
Analyst does not mention time period at all. Incorrect.
(D) claiming that the legislator has attempted to establish a particular conclusion because doing so is in the legislator’s self-interest rather than because of any genuine concern for the truth of the matter
Analyst is not questioning the legislator's intentions. He is objectively pointing out that new law may not have caused the reduction in crime rate. Incorrect.
(E) implying that the legislator has drawn a conclusion about cause and effect without considering how often the alleged effect has occurred in the absence of the alleged cause
Correct. Analyst provides examples wherein the crime rate reduced, but new law was not introduced. So, the alleged effect occured in the absence of alleged cause.