lsat test9/s1/q4

mzyzhu

Q4. The case of the French Revolution is typically regarded as the best evidence for the claim that societies can reap more benefit than harm from a revolution. But even the French Revolution serves this role poorly, since France at the time of the Revolution had a unique advantage. Despite the Revolution, the same civil servants and functionaries remained in office, carrying on the day-to-day work of government, and thus many of the disruptions that revolutions normally bring were avoided.

Which one of the following most accurately characterizes the argumentative strategy used in the passage?
(C) opposing a claim by undermining evidence offered in support of that claim
(D)justifying a view through the use of a series of persuasive examples

the answer is C but I think D is better. First, the evidences, if referring to civil servants, do not support the traditional view, which means revolution is social benefit. Such evidences are from the author who argues the opposite view, which means French revolution is a poor example. Second, the author did not undermine the evidence. The D is much better for (1) putting up examples, (2) justify a view – the French revolution does not justify what traditionalists argue.

What do you guys think?