Hi Everyone. Count me in.

I'm still confused. (A) maybe right. (A) says tha "It describes a phenomenon for which the argument's conclusion is offered as an explanation." "People tend not to reelect inactive politicians" can be regarded as a phenomenon, and the main conclusion that "people's political behavior frequently does not match their rhetoric." does give some explanation to the phenomon.

My first question is whether the support relationship between a premise and a conclusion should be one way from premise to conclusion, not from conclusion to premise as described in (A) that the conclusion explain the premise, or the explanation given by the conclusion can not be regarded as the support relation between premise and conclusion.

The second question is whether a premise only gives support to its conclusion, here the subconclusion that "voters often reelect politicians whose behavior they resent," can not give support to the main conclusion, and only the subconclusion can give support to the main conclusion, that is, the support offered by a premise to a conclusion has its boundary.