Newspaper subscriber: Arnot's editorial argues that by making certain

Newspaper subscriber: Arnot's editorial argues that by making certain fundamental changes in government, we would virtually eliminate our most vexing social ills. But clearly this conclusion is false. After all, the argument Arnot makes for this claim depends on the dubious assumption that government can be trusted to act in the interest of the public.

Which one of the following most accurately expresses a flaw in the argument's reasoning?

(A) It repudiates a claim merely on the ground that an inadequate argument has been given for it -- The author says X. We say that the author is missing something, so it cannot be true. This is our flaw. Just because we do not believe a good argument was made for something (the stated dubious assumption) doesn't make it an impossibility. It could still very much be a valid point. If you claim that the world will collapse in 5 years due to climate change, and I say "That is impossible. You are relying on a dumb assumption. Therefore, me being the smartest person in the world, I know that this cannot be true. Ever." This is a HUGE flaw in our argument!

(B) It treats a change that is required for virtual elimination of society's most vexing social ills as a change that will guarantee the virtual elimination of those ills -- The argument says virtually eliminate, not eliminate all together. And we are arguing that this CANNOT happen. Further, this is so far off base it is not even funny. Where do we state that something is required for something?

(C) It fails to consider that, even if an argument's conclusion is false, some of the assumptions used to justify that conclusion may nonetheless be true -- But the goal of this argument is talking about the conclusion, not the underlying assumptions. Out.

(D) It distorts the opponent's argument and then attacks this distorted argument -- It does not. We say it is relying on shaky information. We do not distort any view point; we do not change any conclusions or claims made. Out.

(E) It uses a key term "government" in one sense in a premise and in another sense in the conclusion -- Nope. Government remains the same throughout (by the way, how could government be used differently? I am thinking government of X versus Y, but even then it is still government). This is tricky in that if you get to (E) and did not select (A), you probably go with it because you are confused and are out of time.