(A) gives us a cause (lack of oversight) that led to two bad events (a government scandal and corruption). It then concludes that, because the cause cannot be fully eliminated, it’s important to bring up other new topics. The stimulus, however, presents a situation where the perceived cause of a bad event is different from its real cause, and concludes that it’s still important to address the perceived cause, so (A) doesn’t match.

(B) gives us a situation where a particular bad event is perceived as having one cause (lack of oversight), when it actually had another (corruption). It then concludes that it’s still good to address the perceived cause because it’s an important topic. This matches the principle from the stimulus, so (B) is correct.

(C) gives us a single bad event with two different causes (lack of oversight and corruption), with both of the causes being addressed. The stimulus, however, gives us a bad event with one real cause and one perceived cause, so (C) doesn’t match.

(D) gives us a situation where a particular bad event is perceived as having one cause (corruption), when it actually had another (lack of oversight). It then concludes that this misattribution is bad. The stimulus, however, concludes that the misattribution of an event’s cause is good because it brings awareness to an important topic, so (D) is the opposite of what we’re looking for.

(E) presents a bad event that is perceived as having a certain cause (corruption). It then affirms this as the primary cause. The stimulus gives us a situation where people are incorrect about the cause of a bad event, however, so (E) doesn’t match.