The analyst doesn’t call the reliability or truth of the statistics into question, only arguing that they do not necessarily support the legislator’s conclusion.

The analyst doesn’t argue that the reduction in crime and the introduction of stricter laws are caused by the same thing. The analyst instead points out that the laws simply may not be the cause of the reduction in crime.

The analyst doesn’t object to the statistics in any way and accepts the decrease in crime as real.

The analyst doesn’t address the legislator’s motivation for making the argument, only arguing against the content of the argument itself.

The analyst points to cases where the same effect has occurred (a decrease in crime) but that have not been subject to the legislator’s assumed cause (the stricter laws). This is used to suggest that the cause-and-effect conclusion drawn by the legislator is unjustified.