Joshua  Smith's  new  novel  was  criticized  by  the  book  editor  for  The  Daily  Standard   as  implausible.  That  criticism,  like  so  many  other  criticisms  from  the  same  source  in   the   past,   is   completely   unwarranted.   As   anyone   who   has   actually   read   the   novel   would   agree,   each   one   of   the   incidents   in   which   Smith's   hero   gets   involved   is   the   kind  of  incident  that  could  very  well  have  happened  to  someone  or  other.    
 
Which  one  of  the  following  is  the  most  serious  error  of  reasoning  in  the  argument?    

   
(A)   It   relies   on   the   assumption   that   a   criticism   can   legitimately   by   dismissed   as   unwarranted   if   it   is   offended   by   someone   who   had   previously   displayed   questionable  judgment.    
(B)   It   ignores   the   fact   that   people   can   agree   about   something   even   though   what   they  agree  about  is  not  the  case.    
(C)   It   calls   into   question   the   intellectual   integrity   of   the   critic   in   order   to   avoid   having  to  address  the  grounds  on  which  the  criticism  is  based    
(D)  It  takes  for  granted  that  a  whole  story  will  have  a  given  characteristics  if  each   of  its  parts  has  that  characteristics    
(E)   It   attempts   to   justify   its   conclusion   by   citing   reasons   that   most   people   would   find  plausible  only  if  they  were  already  convinced  that  the  conclusion  was  true