The lobbyist accused of offering a large cash bribe to the senator defended himself: "When I left the house that day, I was carrying no money with me, so I could not possibly have had anything to offer to the senator. Moreover, immediately before I met with the senator, I spent all my cash on lunch with a colleague at an upscale restaurant, which also explains why I was not in a position to offer the senator a bribe. " This argument is most vulnerable to what criticism?
A: It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one piece of the pieces of information provided in its support.
B: It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.
C: It does not preserve the proper time relationship between cause and effect.
D: It presents two pieces of evidence that do not support the same conclusion.
Choose A, B, C or D as your solution.
B