Why A not C?

@Hunter, Happy to help. Let's take a look at (A) and (C). (C) says, "Thompson has questionable opinions concerning important issues other than taxes." The problem with (C) is that it forces us to make too many assumptions. With (C), we know Thompson has questionable opinions; however, will those opinions affect his leadership capabilities? Additionally, (C) does not attack the politician's reasoning as it is, which is what we are looking to do on weaken questions. (C) merely introduces a different consideration. What we're trying to do is weaken the argument as it currently stands, and the only way that we can do this is by focusing on the number of people who think that opposing taxes makes for a superior leader. Thus, we can get rid of (C). (A) says, "Opposing higher taxes is not a factor contributing to good leadership." (A) tells us that the many people who are referred to in the stimulus might not be correct in their beliefs about opposing taxes making for a better leader. It's still possible that they're correct, but (A) makes it appear that these people may not know what they're talking about when it comes to leadership, so (A) casts doubt and therefore weakens the politician's argument. Thus, (A) is the correct answer choice. Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!

That's a great explanation! Thank you!

@Hunter, you're welcome! Happy it helped!

I thought D was a better answer because I equated adequacy with leadership. Can you help why that is not the right answer

Hi @bb427, One problem with (D) is that it goes from the relative language in the stimulus to an absolute metric of adequacy.

Thanks Ravi for the explanation!