A senator, near the end of his first six-year. . .

[Vincen]

A senator, near the end of his first six-year term and running for reelection, made the claim: "Citizens of our state are thriving. While national unemployment levels have remained high, our state unemployment rate has been at astonishingly low levels for eleven years running. Clearly, everyone in our state has benefitted from the economical packages I have introduced during my time in the Senate. Therefore, grateful citizens of our state ought to vote for my second term."

This argument is most vulnerable to what criticism?

A) It takes a condition to be the effect of something that has happened only after the condition already existed.

B) It introduces several different types of evidence, not all of which are compatible with one another.

C) It conflates political conditions with economic conditions.

D) The economical packages introduced by the senator may not have been as beneficial to citizens of other states.

E) Even if what the senator is saying is true, it may not be in his self-interest to argue in favor of it.

The OA is A.

What is wrong with B and D? Experts please help me.