I take "the president clearly acted in the best interests of the nation." as an indication of the president's ability to serve. this may sound farfethced in itself. However, if you put it in the context of the whole argument, it may be proper. The argument has such a rough reasoning line: In rejecting the plan, the president serves the intersts of the nation. Why do I say so? see, he knew he would meet strong opposition in rejecting the plan, but he still did so. It indicates that he put the nation's wellbeing above the partisan interest and he is courageous. There is no direct evidence here proving that the president did act in the interest of the nation. Instead, the argument takes as the evidence the fact that the president insisted doing so in spite of strong opposition.(courage) Of course, i make such analysis with an awareness of the correct answer. I came to this answer also because i did believe the other choices were simply not correct. What is wrong with D? You had very sound analysis. But think about this: what if the strong opposition from his own party just came from a very few members? Can you still say he acted on behalf of his party's interests? Secondly, the major error of the reasoning underlies the gap between the conclusion (act in the interests of the nation) and the premise(the act was a courageous ). We should get hold of the entire picture. Thank you for your "stubbornness". I believe such discussion are beneficial to both of us. None of us should ever assume that we would always be right. So, discussion is always welcomed |