请教一个逻辑问题。

请教大家一个问题，是狒狒逻辑上的。

37. Editorialist: Drivers with a large number of demerit points who additionally have been convicted of a serious driving-relative offense should either be sentenced to jail or be forced to receive driver reeducation, since to do otherwise would be to allow a crime to go unpunished. Only if such drivers are likely to be made more responsible drivers should driver re-education be recommended for them. Unfortunately, it is always almost impossible to make drivers with a large number of demerit points more responsible drivers.

If the editorialist’s statements are true, they provide the most support for which one of the following?

A.        Drivers with a large number of demerit points who have been convicted of a serious driving-related offense should be sent to jail.

B.        Driver re-education offers the best chance of making drivers with a large number of demerit points responsible drivers.

C.        Driver re-education is not a harsh enough punishment for anyone convicted of a serious driving-related offense who has also

D.       Driver re-education should not be recommended for those who have committed no serious

E.        Drivers with a larger number of demerit points but no conviction for a serious driving-related offense should receive driver re-education rather than jail

答案：A

思路：主编认为那些被罚了很多分并承认曾有过严重的驾驶违规的司机应该被判入狱或强制接受司机再教育，否则就是对该罪责的姑息。司机再教育只适合推荐给那些可能因此变得更有责任心的司机。不幸的是，那些被罚了很多分的司机总是不可能变得更有责任。因此，结论是－罚分高并有过严重驾驶违规的司机应该被送进监狱。

A: 答案符合原文推断。

B: 与原文的论述相反。

D: 主编的论点中没有提到对没有严重驾驶违规的司机的处理意见。

E: 主编的论点中没有提到对没有严重驾驶违规的司机的处理意见。

上面是原题和解释。

请问,答案A是短文里的原话，怎么能算是支持的结论呢？我感觉根据原文的描述，答案C似乎比A更合适。

为什么？

If the editorialist’s statements are true, they provide the most support for which one of the following? 这个问题不是问下列那个选项支持作者的结论，而是问作者上述的推论支持了下了那个结论，千万不要搞混杂了罗，作者逻辑；严重违犯交规的人因该被送进监狱或在教育，但是在教育只是和那些具有责任心的司机，而严重犯规的司机是不可能有责任心的。所以从这段逻辑推出，犯规后的两种措施中的再教育给否定了，司机只能被送进监狱。千万记住，这是一道归纳题，而不是加强题型