Critical Reasoning

A political candidate committed to the principal tenets of a political party may not always explain the implications of his or her party commitment to the voters in full detail. Adele Richardson, for example, is a minor-party candidate in contention for a seat on the school board. She is not likely to inform conservative voters in her district that the national leadership of her party has recently recommended that school curricula be more closely monitored by agencies of the federal government.

Each of the following is assumed in the argument above EXCEPT:

(A) A political candidate is likely to be more interested in winning an election than in proselytizing the electorate.

(B) The candidate of any party is likely to support the policy decisions made by the national leadership.

(C) All candidates for such community positions as membership on the school board must have commitments to national parties.

(D) Conservatives in Adele Richardson's district do not support federal intervention in decisions made by community school officials.

(E) Voters in Adele Richardson's district are not fully aware of the policy statements made by the national leadership of her party

OA : C

Can someone please help in explaining how to approach this question!!

The argument doesnot consider national political parties any where .. so C.

please make use of elimination method.

I see all options so boring, worst of it is C. IMO : C

A candidate is associated with a political party, not all(not a need)

Can someone please explain this more clearly?

Thanks.

All is not the acceptable..some members may be apolitical