Maria: Calling any state totalitarian is misleading: it implies total

Maria: Calling any state totalitarian is misleading: it implies total state control of all aspects of life. The real world contains no political entity exercising literally total control over even one such aspect. This is because any system of control is inefficient, and, therefore, its degree of control is partial.
James: A one-party state that has tried to exercise control over most aspects of a society and that has, broadly speaking, managed to do so is totalitarian. Such a system’s practical inefficiencies do not limit the aptness of the term, which does not describe a state’s actual degree of control as much as it describes the nature of a state’s ambitions.

James responds to Maria’s argument by

(A) pointing out a logical inconsistency between two statements she makes in support of her argument

(B) offering an alternative explanation for political conditions she mentions

(C) rejecting some of the evidence she presents without challenging what she infers from it

(D) disputing the conditions under which a key term of her argument can be appropriately applied

(E) demonstrating that her own premises lead to a conclusion different from hers

James gives an explanation which clearly points out how a state can be totalitarian with Maria's apprehension. James changes the definition given by Maria. Only A does to explain that.

IMO Answer A.