Critical Reasoning

Officials of the Youth Hockey League and parents of players in the league have become concerned with the number
of flagrant fouls occurring during league games. This past season, the number of flagrant fouls was double the
number from the season before. League officials plan to reduce the number of such fouls during the coming
season by implementing mandatory suspensions for players who commit flagrant fouls. Which of the following
statements, if true, provides the best evidence that the officials' plan will be effective?
A) Most serious injuries occurring during league games are a direct result of flagrant fouls.
B) League referees have been trained to recognize flagrant fouls and to report incidents involving such fouls.
C) Parents of players in the league are in support of mandatory suspensions for flagrant fouls.
D) A similar league suspends players for committing flagrant fouls; this league has a relatively low incidence of
flagrant fouls when compared with the Youth Hockey League.
E) Most players in the league strive to be selected for the All-Star team, and league rules state that no player with a
record of suspension shall be selected for the All-Star team.


i am stuck between D and E. in my point of view D and E both strengthen the argument or i am missing something


please discuss

OA after discussion

Hi,
D takes about the rule of suspension and relatively low incidence in a similar league. But, it doesn't necessarily mean to be a cause-effect relationship. There can be many other reasons for the low incidence of fouls.
In E, selection to All-star team is directly dependent on the suspension record. So, E is better, IMO

+1 for E

yes guys OA is E