Bunuel wrote:
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?
(A) demonstrating that the claim argued against is internally inconsistent
(B) supporting a particular position on the basis of general principles
(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
(E) comparing two positions in order to illustrate their relative strengths and weaknesses
OFFICIAL EXPLANATION
(A) No. The author argues that the claim that revolutions' can benefit societies is simply incorrect, at no point does he imply that it is self-contradictory.
(B) No. Other than the claim itself, there are no general principles stated in the passage.
(C) Yes. The author attacks the claim that societies in general can reap more benefit than harm from a revolution by showing that the positive effects of the French Revolution were unique and thus cannot generally be expected to occur with other revolutions.
(D) No. There is only one example given, the French Revolution, not a series of examples.
(E) No. The author is not objectively comparing two positions: he is presenting his position.
_________________