请教一道逻辑题

Senator:Jones is highly qualified for appointment as a judge, as evidence by Jones's receiving a unanimous vote of "qualified" on the formal rating scale sed by the Lawyers' Committe. that committee advises the Senate on judicial appointment.

Which of the following ,if true,is the best reason for dismissing the sennator's claim that Jones is highly qualified?

A Several members of the Lawyers' Committee are not themselves qualified for judicial appointments.

B The Lawyers' Committee does not advise the Senate on all judicial appointments.

C The Lawyer's Cmmittee gives a unanimous vote of "qualified" only to those candidates for judicial apointments who meet the committee's stringent standards for appropriate prior experience and ethical conduct.

D The Lawyers' committee gives a unanimous vote of either "highly qualified" or "very highly qualified" to 95 percent pf all candidates for judicial appointment.

E Jones,like most lawyers,is a member of the professional organization that originally suggested the establishment of the Lawyers' committee.

答案是D.怎么理解？？

题干：参议员说：JONES是合适的人选，因为律师委员会投票认为他行。委员会是给参议员大法官人选建议的。

问：那个选项最能削弱参议员的观点。

A。委员会某些成员自己都不胜任大法官。（没有必然联系，美食家不一定会做菜，评论家不一定会写小说）

B。委员会不会就所有问题对参议会提出建议。（文不对题，反正对大法官人选提建议了）

C。委员会只建议那些经验和品德都符合他们苛刻要求的人选。（这个不是削弱，而是支持）

D。委员会对95%以上的候选人都给与胜任或者非常胜任的评价（这个说来，JONES得到胜任也没什么稀奇的，所以不足以说明一定胜任）

E 。JONES和很多律师一样，也是律师委员会的倡议者之一。（这个是很迷惑的选项，但是冷静想想，也不是必然。因为他本人不是委员会成员，而且倡议并没有提出什么譬如经济方面的因素，不存在贿赂问题吧。个人觉得，没有D的话，E也可以选。但GMAT是选最佳的）

呵呵~谢谢了