Hi, this starts with the argument itself. The politician is saying that since unemployment has increased less during his party's time in office than it did while the other party was in office, now there are fewer people unemployed.
On the surface this is an insane argument. The politician is still acknowledging that unemployment rose while his party was in office. This directly contradicts the conclusion, that there are fewer unemployed people now than when the party took power. This is a good match for D.
The issue with E is that it isn't actually relevant to the argument. There was no increase in employment, there was an increase in unemployment! Furthermore even if there had been an increase in employment, E isn't enough to counter the claim that the party's leadership was what helped. It's entirely possible that both parties actually supported the policies in question, but that the politicians party was better at implementation.
