Senator Strongwood reported that, contrary to a study cited by the adm

Explanation

Hello sharathnair14 this is not an official explanation but i hope it will help.

Our tricky little senator employs a common political trick: He presents a view that contrasts that of the administration, but then proceeds to argue as if the administration’s view doesn’t exist. Even his rhetoric is a carefully constructed attempt to show that only his party’s view exists or matters: “Hooray for common sense . . .”; “Everyone knows that . . .” He then concludes that the tax is dead, because no senator would ever vote for something that will bring about such results—the results that his party predicts but that he now tries to put over as the only possible interpretation. Through all this, Strongwood is hoping that people, especially the voting senators, will forget about the other interpretation of the effects of the tax, namely, the administration’s interpretation. Clearly, in making his argument, he is assuming that the senators believe the report of his party, not that of the administration.

(A) Strongwood’s party believes that reducing the tax would increase the deficit. Nowhere does he or his party suggest what will happen if the tax is increased.

(C) The “common sense” comment is NOT expressly directed at his opponents. He may imply by this comment that the administration lacks common sense on this issue, but this is only a subtle jab, not nearly enough to qualify as “name-calling.”

(D) The notion of “popular” never arises—he simply believes the senators won’t vote for something that, at least in the view of his party, will have the negative effect of increasing the deficit.

(E) We don’t know why Strongwood feels his party’s study is superior to that of the administration’s. As far as we know, he assumes nothing about the relative “objectivity” of each. He simply announces the superiority of his party’s study, not the reasons for the superiority.

Answer: B