Critical Reasoning

Anne: Halley's Comet now in part of its orbit relatively far from the Sun, recently flared brightly enough to be seen by telescope. No comet has ever been observed to flare so far from the sun before, so such a flare must be highly unusual.

Sue: Nonsense. Usually no one bothers to try to observe comets when they are so far from the Sun. This flare was observed only because an observatory was tracking Halley's Comet very carefully.

Sue challenges Anne's reasoning by

(A) pointing out that Anne's use of the term "observed" is excessively vague.
(B) drawing attention to an inconsistency between two of Anne's claims.
(C) presenting evidence that directly contradicts Anne's evidence.
(D) offering an alternative explanation for the evidence Anne cites.
(D) undermining some of Anne's evidence while agreeing with her conclusion.


[spoiler]
OA: D[/spoiler]




I am completely satisfied with the reason(s) why 'D' must be the correct answer, but I cant figure out why the 'B' cannot be the right answer. I see somehow inconsistency in Anne's claims, so I wonder what is the problem. Maybe I misunderstood the meaning of "inconsistency". I will be very glad if experts and seniors offer me some explanations for my doubt.

Regards.