Critical Reasoning

When politicians resort to personal attacks, many editorialists criticize these attacks but most voters pay them scant attention. Everyone knows such attacks will end after election day, and politicians can be excused for mudslinging. Political commentators, however, cannot be. Political commentators should be engaged in sustained and serious debate about ideas and policies. In such a context personal attacks on opponents serve not to beat those opponents but to cut off the debate.

Which of the following most accurately states the main point of the argument?

(A) Personal attacks on opponents serve a useful purpose for politicians.
(B) Political commentators should not resort to personal attacks on their opponents.
(C) Editorialists are right to criticize politicians who resort to personal attacks on their opponents.
(D) The purpose of serious debate about ideas and policies is to counteract the effect of personal attacks by politicians.
(E) Voters should be concerned about the personal attacks politicians make on each other.
[spoiler]
why is the answer B instead of D.

isnt right that B is so extream to conclude about?[/spoiler]

This is a question where you can get lost due to all the extra information. All you need to do is find the main point. The main discussion of the passage deals with personal attacks. The author is primarily concerned with the personal attacks as they pertain to political commentators. The main point is buried right in the middle of the passage.

Political commentators, however, cannot be (excused for personal attacks)

The sentence that follows just gives a reason as to why they cant use personal attacks.

A. Incorrect. He actually states the opposite

B. Correct. Clearly stated in the passage

C. Incorrect. He doesnt get into whether or not they are right to criticize.

D. Incorrect. He states that the personal attacks by politicans are not important so there is no need to counteract them.

E. Incorrect. He is not concerned with the voters