最近JJ中的一道GWD题

46, GWD-17-Q9  ress Secretary:  Our critics claim that the President’s recent highway project cancellations demonstrate a vindictive desire to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties.  They offer as evidence the fact that 90 percent of the projects canceled were in such districts.  But all of the canceled projects had been identified as wasteful in a report written by respected nonpartisan auditors.  So the President’s choice was clearly motivated by sound budgetary policy, not partisan politics.
Which of the following is an assumption on which the press secretary’s argument depends?
a，Canceling highway projects was not the only way for the President to punish legislative districts controlled by opposition parties.

b，The scheduled highway projects identified as wasteful in the report were not mostly projects in districts controlled by the President’s party.

c，The number of projects canceled was a significant proportion of all the highway projects that were to be undertaken by the government in the near future.

d，The highway projects canceled in districts controlled by the President’s party were not generally more expensive than the projects canceled in districts controlled by opposition parties.

e，Reports by nonpartisan auditors are not generally regarded by the opposition parties as a source of objective assessments of government projects.

答案是B，我怎么觉得B是无关选项，我选E，我的理解是，无党派人士的报告没有被反对派提及，所以可以用来当证据，请NN指教！

选B negate B 可以得出是削弱原文conclusion

看过前人的帖子是这样解释的：

BBBBBBBBBBBB..

比例的问题.

90%反对党的计划被取消.

但是,所有取消的计划都是无党派的审计认为是浪费的.

结论:总统是根据预算判断而不是报复.

B中说多数浪费的计划并不是在总统的district内的.

取非的话,多数浪费的计划在总统的district内.说明了数据的不准确性..结论不能成立.

取非的话,多数浪费的计划在总统的district内.说明了数据的不准确性，这样也不能weaken啊，我怎么觉得取非以后反而加强了呢？