Explanation
A. Galindo’s argument does not address Fremont’s potential personal bias, nor does it suggest that Fremont's objection is based on such bias.
B. Galindo does not engage with the relevance of different types of experience but rather with the notion that industry background alone is not a definitive factor for success.
C. (Correct Response) Galindo’s argument is flawed because it confuses the necessity of an attribute for success (industry background) with its sufficiency. By citing one instance where industry experience did not lead to success, Galindo is arguing against the idea that such experience is necessary, which was not Fremont's claim. Fremont's argument was that lack of industry background disqualifies a candidate, which is a different point.
D. Galindo does not claim that the attribute (oil industry background) is always irrelevant to success, only that it is not a guaranteed determinant of success, as evidenced by a single counterexample.
E. While Galindo does present a single instance, he does not necessarily use it to make a broad generalization about all instances. His point is that an oil industry background is not a guarantee of success, not that it is never associated with success.
The flaw in Galindo’s argument lies in option C. He uses a counterexample to refute a claim of sufficiency when Fremont’s initial claim was about necessity.