This is the cookie-cutter flaw of “equivocation,” where the author uses one term to mean multiple different things. But the other uses “policies” consistently, so (A) doesn’t describe the flaw in her argument.

The fact that the commentators are not identified does not change their assessment or affect the author’s argument. So (B) cannot be the flaw.

The commentators’ assessment is inferred to be false merely because “most people disagree” with it, or believe it to be false. But just because most people believe something, is not evidence that it is actually the case.

This is the cookie-cutter flaw of “circular reasoning,” where the premise is simply a restatement of the conclusion. But the claim noted in (D) is only the conclusion. The author’s premise and conclusion are distinct in this argument, so she doesn’t make this mistake.

This is the cookie-cutter “part vs. whole” flaw. But this doesn’t apply to this argument at all. The author never assumes that what is true of one part of the country is also true of the country as a whole.