The lobbyist accused of offering a large cash bribe to the senator defended himself: "When I left the house that day, I was carrying no money with me, so I could not possibly have had anything to offer to the senator. Moreover, immediately before I met with the senator, I spent all my cash on lunch with a colleague at an upscale restaurant, which also explains why I was not in a position to offer the senator a bribe."
This argument is most vulnerable to what criticism?
A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one piece of the pieces of information provided in its support.
B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
C) It does not preserve the proper time relationship between cause and effect.
D) It presents two pieces of evidence that do not support the same conclusion.
E) It confuses basic financial information with legal claims.
I'm confused between B and D? Can any experts help?
This argument is most vulnerable to what criticism?
A) It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one piece of the pieces of information provided in its support.
B) It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
C) It does not preserve the proper time relationship between cause and effect.
D) It presents two pieces of evidence that do not support the same conclusion.
E) It confuses basic financial information with legal claims.
I'm confused between B and D? Can any experts help?
