Critical Reasoning

Politician: From the time our party took office almost four years ago the number of people unemployed city-wide increased by less than 20 percent. The opposition party controlled city government during the four preceding years, and the number of unemployed city residents rose by over 20 percent. Thus, due to our leadership, fewer people now find themselves among the ranks of the unemployed, whatever the opposition may claim.

The reasoning in the politician’s argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that

(A) the claims made by the opposition are simply dismissed without being specified

(B) no evidence has been offered to show that any decline in unemployment over the past four years was uniform throughout all areas of the city

(C) the issue of how much unemployment in the city is affected by seasonal fluctuations is ignored
(D) the evidence cited in support of the conclusion actually provides more support for the denial of the conclusion

(E) the possibility has not been addressed that any increase in the number of people employed is due to programs supported by the opposition party

do explain it!

IMO E
A -> Opposition party's statistics specified, so this statement is false
B -> we are concerned with number of people unemployed city-wide
C -> Out of Scope..
D -> Evidence do support the conclusion.
E -> If true, would hamper the conclusion made by ruling party that due to THEIR leadership, unemployment reduced

OA please?

yes E

OA is D
do explain it

geet wrote:Politician: From the time our party took office almost four years ago the number of people unemployed city-wide increased by less than 20 percent. The opposition party controlled city government during the four preceding years, and the number of unemployed city residents rose by over 20 percent. Thus, due to our leadership, fewer people now find themselves among the ranks of the unemployed, whatever the opposition may claim.

The reasoning in the politician’s argument is most vulnerable to the criticism that

(A) the claims made by the opposition are simply dismissed without being specified

(B) no evidence has been offered to show that any decline in unemployment over the past four years was uniform throughout all areas of the city

(C) the issue of how much unemployment in the city is affected by seasonal fluctuations is ignored
(D) the evidence cited in support of the conclusion actually provides more support for the denial of the conclusion

(E) the possibility has not been addressed that any increase in the number of people employed is due to programs supported by the opposition party

do explain it!

Hmmm
Now i can imagine why D could be correct.
suppose 1000 unemployed when preceding government took charge
Unemployment rate rose by 25%, assume
Therefore no of unemployed people at the end og past government's tenure = 1250
Now suppose under current government unemployment rate rose by only 10%
SO NOW no of unemployed people = 1250 + 10% of 1250 > some no greater than 1250...
conclusion fewer people now find themselves among the ranks of the unemployed. Is it true? NO. Infact no. of unemployed people rose from the previous figure

Pls correct me if the logic is wrong somewhere...

Exceptional question. What's the source?

The Politician talks about 20%. 20% over what is not mentioned. This makes his claim(conclusion) very susceptible to doubt.

I don't think that the answer can be E... this is out of scope. Answer A can be eliminated since negation doesn't show the answer to be correct. Uniform unemployment and seasonal fluctuations are also irrelevant.

The only choice left is D.

I believe the answer should be E