Politician: From the time our party took office almost four years ago

This is a weaken question. With these, it's important to look as closely as possible at the premises and the conclusion. Make sure you don't change the words as they're written to fix a bad argument. Often, the arguments made in CR passages are so terrible that, in taking notes, you end up making them better. Don't do it!

Politician: From the time our party took office almost four years ago the number of people unemployed city-wide increased by less than 20 percent. The opposition party controlled city government during the four preceding years, and the number of unemployed city residents rose by over 20 percent. Thus, due to our leadership, fewer people now find themselves among the ranks of the unemployed, whatever the opposition may claim.

Conclusion: Fewer people are unemployed because of party
Premise: Our party saw unemployment increase by less than 20%, other party by more than 20%

At first glance, this may look like a typical "percent isn't the same as number" kind of question. But look closely at the conclusion. The party is saying fewer people are unemployed, when they admit that there was an INCREASE in unemployment! Just because it was less than 20% doesn't make it a decrease. In reality, the fact cited totally undermines that conclusion.

The reasoning in the politician’s argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that
(A) the claims made by the opposition are simply dismissed without being specified
Problem: This argument has nothing to do with what the opposition did or didn't do. In fact, all that stuff about opposition is a big red herring. All we care about is whether or not there are "fewer people" unemployed now than before the party took power.

(B) no evidence has been offered to show that any decline in unemployment over the past four years was uniform throughout all areas of the city
Problem: Unemployment density is immaterial; we just need the overall number.

(C) the issue of how much unemployment in the city is affected by seasonal fluctuations is ignored
Problem: This doesn't address the data we've been given, and is irrelevant.

(D) the evidence cited in support of the conclusion actually provides more support for the denial of the conclusion
Answer: Yep. If unemployment INCREASED, even by 2%, that would lead one to the conclusion that MORE people are unemployed, not fewer.

(E) the possibility has not been addressed that any increase in the number of people employed is due to programs supported by the opposition party
Problem: This is tempting, because it makes it sound like the opposition might have had some effect on a later increase in employment. However, there was no increase! There was only a decrease of "less than 20%".

OFFICIAL EXPLANATION

(A) No. The politician only needs to support the conclusion that “fewer people now find themselves among the ranks of the unemployed”; He is not required to specifically refute the opposition’s position. Even so, he does implicitly address the opposition, which apparently claims that a greater or equal number of people are unemployed now than four years
ago.

(B) No. This is irrelevant. The politician’s claim is about the “number of people unemployed city-wide” and does not concern differences in employment that might exist among different neighborhoods in the city.

(C) No. This is irrelevant. Since both the politician’s party and the opposition’s party held office for four years, annual seasonal fluctuations should have no
impact on overall employment.

(D) Yes. Although the percentage increase in unemployment was less than it was under the previous administration, it still did increase. So by definition, there are now more people unemployed than before.

(E) No. The politician’s claim concerns programs that were implemented under the leadership of his party. Whatever programs were supported by the opposition is irrelevant.
_________________

Will go with D
Conclusion is : fewer people now find themselves among the ranks of the unemployed, whatever the opposition may claim.-----we are talking about absolute number here ..

Now according to argument : 4 years back , let 100 were unemployed ...
now as politician stated , the unemployment rate rose less than 20% in his tenure ....so let say 15 %...
Now latest number of people unemployment --115 ...That is greater than previous number ...

hence the conclusion is faulty ..that is what D is saying ,

Good explanation from MGMAT:

(A) is not true. There is no claim offered by the opposition that is simply dismissed. We would need to be able to point to a claim made by the opposition that the author dismisses, and even then the claim would need to be central to the politician's argument.
(B) is too specific. The argument never concludes that the unemployment was uniform throughout all areas of the city.
(C) is too narrow in scope. Definitely season fluctuations could be at play, but could not influence numbers that span a four year period.
(E) is the most tempting of the incorrect answers. It addresses a possible alternative cause, but those programs under the opposition, might yet have been supported by the politician's party.
_________________

Politician: From the time our party took office almost four years ago the number of people unemployed city-wide increased by less than 20 percent. The opposition party controlled city government during the four preceding years, and the number of unemployed city residents rose by over 20 percent. Thus, due to our leadership, fewer people now find themselves among the ranks of the unemployed, whatever the opposition may claim.

The reasoning in the politician’s argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that

Considered D (but didn't select) because while the population of unemployed still rose, the percentage trend was still less.
I'm a little confused because looking at the two pieces of evidence as a pair, it's conclusion is logical. But looking at the the first piece of evidence in a vacuum makes it look like it the conclusion is incorrect.

Picked E because it at least suggests that there was bipartisan support for the programs in place, which would cut against the claim of the partys leadership (an therefore the parties policies) being the cause.

Disagree with TommyWallach, believe this is more of a flaw in the reasoning/method of reasoning question. Not a weaken-type question

KarishmaB - Can you pls explain how option D is correct answer ?

Thank you!