Some people have questioned the judges objectivity in cases of sex

Here is the argument:

Premises:
Some people have questioned the judge’s objectivity in cases of sex discrimination against women.
But the record shows that in sixty percent of such cases, the judge has decided in favor of the women.
Conclusion:
So the judge has not discriminated against women in cases of sex discrimination against women.

The conclusion has assuming something. Why does 60% in favour of women mean no discrimination? It is probably saying that in more than 50% cases, the judge favoured the woman so he is not biased against women. But here is my problem - what if women were right in 90% of the cases? Then in 30% cases, he favoured men unfairly. So we cannot conclude that the judge has not discriminated against women.

The question asks for a flaw. What we discussed above is the flaw.

(A) a large number of the judge’s cases arose out of allegations of sex discrimination against women
Actual number of cases is immaterial. We are only discussing percentages here.

(B) many judges find it difficult to be objective in cases of sex discrimination against women
The point is whether this judge is objective or not. Whether many judges are not objective is irrelevant.

(C) the judge is biased against women defendants or plaintiffs in cases that do not involve sex discrimination
The argument talks about "judge’s objectivity in cases of sex discrimination against women". What happens in other cases is irrelevant.

(D) the majority of the cases of sex discrimination against women that have reached the judge’s court have been appealed from a lower court
How the cases reached him is irrelevant.

(E) the evidence shows that the women should have won in more than sixty percent of the judge’s cases involving sex discrimination against women
Exactly. If there is reason to believe that women are right in say 90% cases, 60% is a poor figure. It doesn't imply that the judge is objective. This is the flaw.

Answer (E)