argumentative technique in the speeches

[WoundedGmatter]

Audiences find a speaker more convincing if the speaker begins a speech by arguing briefly against his or her position before providing reasons for accepting it. The reason this technique is so effective is that it makes the speaker appear fair-minded and trustworthy. Therefore, candidates for national political office who wish to be successful in winning votes should use this argumentative technique in the speeches.
Which one of the following, if true, most seriously limits the effectiveness of adopting the argument’s recommendation?
(A) Political candidates typically have no control over which excerpts from their speeches will be reported by the news media.
(B) Many people do not find arguments made by politicians convincing, since the arguments are often one-sided or oversimplify the issues.
(C) People decide which political candidate to vote for more on the basis of their opinions of the candidate’s character than on the exact positions of the candidate.
(D) People regard a political candidate more favorably if they think that the candidate respects an opponent’s position even while disagreeing with it.
(E) Political candidates have to address audiences of many different sizes and at many different locations in the course of a political campaign

Subtle options......... give your opinions

[eravi11]

IMO C as it gives another reason (candidate's character) why people would vote to candidate rather than by candidate's position.

[clafleur]

A. Seems to be the only choice that shows how this technique could harm the candidate

[Drizzling Beauty]

A again...

[nverma]

IMO D

a) Raising the option of "Media", i think, is out of scope. Even the excerpts from any non political speaker can also be published. And this case has not been discussed in the argument.

b) it discusses politicians as a whole , without undermining the usage of technique

c) Out of scope, it doesn't undermine the technique

e)Size or location, generally will not undermine the technique used.

d) As per the assumption: The politicians cannot take one sided stand and they do not consider the opponent's position wrong.So the technique of taking position will not work. IMO CORRECT>..

[delhiboy1979]

I go with C.

[achar_varun]

Answer is A. Correctly identifies why the technique may harm the candidate.
B. this strengthens the argument
C. is not relevant to the argument. We are debating whether a candidate should use the technique stated in the passage.
D. this strengthens the argument.
E. Irrelevant to the topic.

[npalani07]

Choice "C" sounds correct to me.
What is the OA por favor, El Señor?

[romrubiens]

IMO C
but i find answers very close...

[Meggieski]

Absolutely C. It would be stupid to argue both sides of a debate if that isn't really the criteria that people vote for.

D would strengthen the argument.. not weaken it. A is outside of the scope. They mention nothing about television.