Critical Reasoning

Mullen has proposed to raise taxes on the rich, who made so much money during the past decade. Yet Mullen's tax records show heavy investment in business during that time and large profits; so Mullen's proposal does not deserve our consideration.
The flawed reasoning in the argument above is most similar to the flawed reasoning in which one of the following?
(A) Do not vote for Smith's proposed legislation to subsidize child care for working parents; Smith is a working parent.
(B) Do not put any credence in Dr. Han's recent proposal to ban smoking in all public places; Dr. Han is a heavy smoker.
(C) The previous witness's testimony ought to be ignored; he has been convicted of both forgery and mail fraud.
(D) Board member Timm's proposal to raise the salaries of the company's middle managers does not deserve to be considered; Timm's daughter is a middle manager at the company's headquarters.
(E) Dr. Wasow's analysis of the design of this bridge should not be taken seriously; after all, Dr. Wasow has previously only designed factory buildings

IMO B .

He is rich so dont agree to proposed raise in taxes .

He is smoker do dont agree to ban smoking.

2.24min
For me D > C

IMO D.


(A) Smith as well as rest are benifiting. we need put law on others and you ignore it
(B) Dr. Han is heavy smoker but not in public or at home.. Half good.
(C) The witness alone may be cheating the law, he is not asking other to cheat
(D) IMO
(E) Wasow is a good civil engineer, so dont make him do constructions.

IMO B. Agree with AIM GMAT

+1 for B. The structure of the argument and Op B are the same.