Critical Reasoning

In the week before a local election, a news company polled registered voters in the area to ask them
which candidate they planned to vote for. Voters from a representative sample of genders, ages, races,
and political affiliations were polled, and 53% of them said they would vote for incumbent Jana Reyes
for mayor over any other candidate. Based on the poll results, the news company concluded that Reyes
would win the mayoral race


In the argument above, the portion in boldface plays which of the following roles?
A. It is a conclusion that must be proven in order for the argument to be valid.
B. It is an assumption that provides little support for the conclusion of the argument.
C. It is a premise that has questionable validity in the context of the argument.
D. It provides evidence to support another premise of the argument.
E. It provides evidence to support the news company's conclusion.

OA D

I choose E. Can anyone explain how OA is correct and my choice is wrong.

HERE
"Voters from a representative sample of genders, ages, races,
and political affiliations were polled" is a PREMISE
AND
" 53% of them said they would vote for incumbent Jana Reyes
for mayor over any other candidate" is a PREMISE
The conclusion is
"the news company concluded that Reyes would win the mayoral race"
Now the conclusion is based on the poll results which is the second premise mentioned above and that is not what is asked.(what is the first premise role?)
The first premise is supporting second premise, which in turn supports the conclusion
Ans D

This questions is not difficult. The key to the question is a deconstruction of the argument.
Timing is less than 1 min.

Background information: In the week before a local election, a news company polled registered voters in the area to ask them which candidate they planned to vote for.

Evidence #1: Voters from a representative sample of genders, ages, races,
and political affiliations were polled

Evidence #2: " , and 53% of them said they would vote for incumbent Jana Reyes
for mayor over any other candidate.

Conclusion: Based on the poll results, the news company concluded that Reyes
would win the mayoral race

Sequence: Evidence #1 => Evidence #2 => Conclusion (Evidence #1 proves validity of Evidence #2).


In the argument above, the portion in boldface plays which of the following roles?
A. It is a conclusion that must be proven in order for the argument to be valid.
>> Evidence #1 is not a conclusion.

B. It is an assumption that provides little support for the conclusion of the argument.
>> Evidence #1 can't be assumption. Assumption is something we assume for our argument to be logic.

C. It is a premise that has questionable validity in the context of the argument.
>> Evidence #1 could be considered as a premise (helps to achieve the conclusion) but the argument doesn't question its validity.

D. It provides evidence to support another premise of the argument.
>> This is it. Evidence is in fact a synonym of premise and as we concluded above Evidence 1 supports Evidence #2.

E. It provides evidence to support the news company's conclusion.
=> Evidence #1 doesn't directly support the new company's conclusion.