Critical Reasoning

The president’s nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged conservative for their stands on hot-button issues. But a review of their financial disclosure forms and Senate questionnaires reveals that the nominees are more notable for their close ties to corporate and economic interests, especially the energy and mining industries. Some of them were paid lobbyists for those same interests. Further, the nominees with industry ties were overwhelmingly appointed to circuit courts regarded as traditional battlegrounds over litigation affecting these industries. Independent observers who follow the federal bench believe that the extensive corporate involvement among so many of the nominees is unprecedented.

In the argument above, the two portions in boldface pay which of the following roles?

1. The first is a generalization that the author aims to attack; the second is that attack.
2. The first is a pattern that the author acknowledges as true; the second is the author’s conclusion based on that acknowledgment.
3. The first is a phenomenon that the author accepts as true; the second is evidence in support of the author’s conclusion.
4. The first is the author’s position based on the evidence cited; the second is a pattern presented in support of that position.
5. The first is an exception to a rule introduced in the argument; the second provides the reasoning behind the exception.

OA: [spoiler](C)[/spoiler] But can you please justify why [spoiler](A)[/spoiler] is not the answer?

Disclaimer: I'm not too good at these kind of questions (Atleast not as yet).
So my reasoning may be flawed.

I do not believe that the first boldface is a generalization. It is a specific occurrence. IMO it is so because it does not contain any generalization terms like All etc.
Neither is it a pattern. It does not look like a repeatable process.
This rules out A and B.
The 1st does fit as a phenomenon, position and an exception so keep C, D and E.

D - all the evidence suggested does not definitely support the 1st. Note the usage of the clause But in the beginning of the 2nd sentence.

E - if the 1st is an exception, the 2nd does not provide reasoning for it.
The 2nd infact probably suggests the opposite of the 1st. Again, note the usage of the word Further in continuation to the But introduced in the previous sentence.

I used this reasoning as POE to arrive at C.
Hope its coherent and "reasonable".

Looking at it now, C makes sense