Explanation

Reading the question: we're given an argument to pick apart. Term matching is a good candidate for any argument, but especially pseudo-syllogistic arguments such as this one, so we can create our filter by looking for a mismatch of terms:



Creating a filter: the first two rows highlight the same basic point, which is that, if the study has been conducted in a way such that it is not representative of the population of Patria as a whole, then the audit would be questionable. However, we've been told that the citizens selected for the audit were selected "at random," so they are most likely representative of the population. The most basic mismatch is the final one: the term in the conclusion "more likely to commit tax fraud" matches up imprecisely with the concept in the evidence "indications of potential tax fraud." For example, maybe it's typical to demonstrate indications of tax fraud and not commit fraud; maybe the indications are poor predictors overall of whether these people are actually committing the tax fraud more. There's our filter.

Applying the filter: we look for an answer choice that expresses this connection and find (B).

Logical proof: we can use the negation test to see whether (B) is critical to the argument. What if citizens whose records have indications of potential tax fraud are not at all more likely to commit tax fraud? Indeed, then the argument collapses, the higher incidence of these indications then would not constitute evidence of a higher rate of tax fraud in any group. The correct answer is (B).