OG12 CR

[getso]

Hello,

Could anybody explain the reasoning here:

Journalist: In late 1994, the present government of the Republic of Bellam came into power. Each year since
then, about thirty journalists have been imprisoned for printing articles that criticize the government. In 1994,
under the old government, only six journalists were imprisoned for criticizing the government. So the old
government was more tolerant of criticism by the press than the new one is.

Politician: But in 1994 only six journalists criticized the government, and now journalists routinely do.
The politician challenges the journalist's argument by doing which of the following?
(A) Presenting data that extend further into the past than the journalist's data
(B) Introducing evidence that undermines an assumption of the journalist's argument
(C) Questioning the accuracy of the evidence presented in support of the journalist's conclusion
(D) Pointing out that the argument illegitimately draws a general conclusion on the basis of a sample of only a
few cases
(E) Stating that the argument

IMO B

[brick2009]

The jurno says: 30 is > than 6

Politician says: 30/100 < 6/6

So .. the politician is providing some additional "evidence" to prove that the jurno is wrong is assuming that numbers are more important than the ratio