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?

A) The first is a generalization that the author aims to attack; the second is that attack.

B) The first is a pattern that the author acknowledges as true; the second is the author's conclusion based on that acknowledgment.

C) The first is a phenomenon that the author accepts as true; the second is evidence in support of the author's conclusion.

D) The first is the author's position based on the evidence cited; the second is a pattern presented in support of that position.

E) The first is an exception to a rule introduced in the argument; the second provides the reasoning behind the exception

Premises -

The president's nominees to federal circuit courts have been judged conservative for their stands on hot-button issues. - Observation based on Fact (For).

the nominees with industry ties were overwhelmingly appointed to circuit courts regarded as traditional battlegrounds over litigation affecting these industries. - Fact/reasoning (for - the observation).

Conclusion -

observers who follow the federal bench believe that the extensive corporate involvement among so many of the nominees is unprecedented.

fact/Observation (for) / Reasoning(for)

a.generalization pattern (False)/ Attack (against) -> No match
b.Pattern (False)/ Conclusion - No match.
c.Phenomenon (observation)/Evidence for conclusion -> Match.
d.Position (observation)/Pattern (False) -> No Match
e.Exception (Opposite of observation)/Reasoning(Dosen't support Exception) - No Match.

C prevails.

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?

Conclusion : Nominees are more notable for ties to focus groups than their conservatism.

A) The first is a generalization that the author aims to attack; the second is that attack.
Incorrect : BF1 doesn't seems like generalization.

B) The first is a pattern that the author acknowledges as true; the second is the author's conclusion based on that acknowledgment.
Incorrect : BF2 is not conclusion but it is supporting the conclusion

C) The first is a phenomenon that the author accepts as true; the second is evidence in support of the author's conclusion.
Correct : This correctly describes BF 1 and BF 2

D) The first is the author's position based on the evidence cited; the second is a pattern presented in support of that position.
Incorrect : BF 2 is not supporting the author's position but is introducing a clause

E) The first is an exception to a rule introduced in the argument; the second provides the reasoning behind the exception
Incorrect : There is no exception to any rule.

The author contradicts BF1. BF1 says that the judges are mostly conservative. Instead BF2 says that they are mostly part of special interest group and not conservative.

So BF1 is contradicted by the author and BF2 is presented as evidence.

The conclusion should be that judges represent special interest group rather than conservatives.

IMO A