Most radicals who argue for violent revolution and complete overthrow

Official Explanation

The weakness in the argument is that it makes an assertion without any supporting argumentation. The author states that things might turn out to be worse, but never mentions any specific way in which the result might be considered less desirable than what presently exists. As for (A), the author might have chosen to attack the radicals in this way, but not having adopted a particular line of attack is not nearly so severe a criticism as that expressed by (B)—that the line of attack that was adopted is defective, or at least incomplete. The same reasoning applies to both (C) and (E). It is true the author might have taken the attack proposed by (C), but choosing not to is not nearly so serious a weakness as that pointed out by (B). (E) comes perhaps the closest to expressing what (B) says more explicitly. (E) hints at the specific consequences that might occur, but it is restricted to the transition period. It is not really detailing the bad results that might finally come out of a revolution, only the disadvantages of undertaking the change. Finally, (D) describes existing conditions, but it does not treat the question whether there should be a revolution; and, in any event, to defend against the question whether there should be a revolution by arguing there will not be one would itself be weak, had the author used the argument.

The correct answer is (B).