Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself

[chitrangada.maitra]

Political analyst: A party that temporarily positions itself in the negligible crack between the American right and left will do little to expand the public debate. What America needs is a permanent third party. Some claim that America’s success stems from the two party system. These people say that a third party would make the passage of legislation and thus governance impossible. Furthermore, they point to the current sluggish pace of government as proof that the country cannot bear the burden of a third party. Yet, most European countries have multi-party systems and few complain about any inability to govern there.

Which of the following best describes the functions of the two sections in boldface in the argument above?

A. The first is the main point of the argument; the second is a premise that supports that point.

B. The first opposes the premises of the argument; the second is the claim that the argument supports.

C. The first supports the main position held by opponents of the main point; the second is a premise that argues against that position.

D. The first is the primary claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the second is evidence proposed in opposition to the first.

E. The first is a claim made by opponents of the main point of the argument; the second is the claim that the first opposes.

The answer explanation for option C says:
This choice is incorrect because the first boldface is the actual position held by the opponents, not a premise for their position. This choice does correctly state that the second boldface is a premise that argues against the position held by the opponents.

The answer explanation for option D says:
The first is the claim of the argument’s opponents, and the second is evidence that contradicts the opponents’ claim.

My question is:
How can the second boldface be both premise and evidence at the same time? My understanding is that the second boldface is evidence that contradicts the opponents claim!

Am I misunderstanding anything here?

[tim]

just think of "premise" and "evidence" as synonyms in CR..