Flaw in Logic/ Weakening

[turbo jet]

In criminal proceedings, defense attorneys occasionally attempt to establish that a suspect was not present at the commission of a crime by comparing the suspect’s DNA to the DNA of blood or hair samples taken from the scene of the crime. Although every person’s DNA is unique, DNA tests often fail to distinguish among DNA samples taken from distinct individuals. Hence, it is a mistake to exonerate a suspect simply because that person’s DNA did not match the DNA samples taken
from the scene of the crime.

Which one of the following is an error in the reasoning
above?
(A) It assumes without warrant that the use of physical evidence in identifying suspects is never mistaken.

(B) It confuses a test that incorrectly identifies DNA samples as coming from the same person with a test that incorrectly shows as coming from
different persons samples that come from a single person.

(C) It generalizes about the reliability of all methods used to identify those involved in the commission of a crime on the basis of results
that pertain to only a few such methods.

(D) It relies on experimental data derived from DNA testing that have not been shown to hold under nonexperimental conditions.

(E) It fails to demonstrate that physical evidence taken from the scene of a crime is the only sort of evidence that should be admitted in criminal
court proceedings.

[spoiler]OA: B[/spoiler]

[vinaynp]

Just because a test fail to distinguish among DNA samples taken from distinct individuals doesn't mean that it says the DNA samples are same.

Hence IMO B)

[ST]

which level this question belog? just wondering......

[Sprite_TM]

i think E - author assumes that DNA is the only evidence to convict someone

A, B, - unrelated
C OOS
D OOS

[aspirant_gmat]

is B the correct answer?

[pops]

I am wondering for this part of the question:
"Which one of the following is an error in the reasoning above?"

[aspirant_gmat]

The author has reached to the conclusion: "Hence, it is a mistake to exonerate a suspect simply because that person’s DNA did not match the DNA samples taken from the scene of the crime."

Now, the questions is asking us to find the wrong reasoning the author has used to reach to the conclusion by considering the given facts (In criminal proceedings, defence attorneys occasionally attempt to establish that a suspect was not present at the commission of a crime by comparing the suspect’s DNA to the DNA of blood or hair samples taken from the scene of the crime. Although every person’s DNA is unique, DNA tests often fail to distinguish among DNA samples taken from distinct individuals).

[micheal_kr]

I would go with option B