The lobbyist accused of offering a large cash bribe to the senator defended himself: "When I left the house that day, I was carrying no money with me, so I could not possibly have had anything to offer to the senator. Moreover, immediately before I met with the senator, I spent all my cash on lunch with a colleague at an upscale restaurant, which also explains why I was not in a position to offer the senator a bribe."

This argument is most vulnerable to what criticism?

A:It offers a conclusion that is no more than a paraphrase of one piece of the pieces of information provided in its support.

B:It presents as evidence in support of a claim information that is inconsistent with other evidence presented in support of the same claim.

C:It does not preserve the proper time relationship between cause and effect.

D:It presents two pieces of evidence that do not support the same conclusion.

E:It confuses basic financial information with legal claims.