The mayor does argue that job availability was important to her voters by saying, “The unemployed voters in this city want jobs.” But (A) doesn't describe a flaw in her argument.

The mayor doesn’t address this, but it doesn’t describe a flaw in her argument. Even if unemployed people represent more than 8% of voters, it doesn’t change the fact that there was an 8% increase in the number of jobs during her term.

The mayor fails to address the objection that the 8% job increase came from a government office moving to the city with its entire staff, rather than from increased job availability for her unemployed voters.

The challenger doesn’t make this contention. He never argues that the newcomers increased the size of the voting public and altered its priorities, so the mayor doesn't need to address this point.

The mayor only claims that the challenger agrees with the employment statistics. Since the challenger does cite these statistics, she isn’t falsely attributing a belief to him.