The argument is saying anyone who opposes higher taxes will make a better leader. We need to weaken this. If we say, Thompson was a better leader because of some other reason and taxes was not the reason, we can weaken it.
(A) Opposing higher taxes is not a factor contributing to good leadership.--> Okay, it is saying Opposing higher taxes has no contribution to become a good leader. This i s directly attacking the conclusion.
(B) Being opposed to higher taxes is not a sufficient condition
...
(A) Opposing higher taxes is not a factor contributing to good leadership.--> Okay, it is saying Opposing higher taxes has no contribution to become a good leader. This i s directly attacking the conclusion.
(B) Being opposed to higher taxes is not a sufficient condition
...




