There are those who complain that municipal libraries are

I got a p.m. from my friend voodoochild, so I am responding.

Let's dissect this argument.
Sentence #1 --- statement of fact --- there are people that are down on libraries --- this is kinda evidence for Sentence #2
Sentence #2 (bold) --- statement of fact ---- they hold View #1
Sentence #3 --- big change of gears, new perspective, evidence for Sentence #4
Sentence #4 (bold) --- author states View #2 as his conclusion.

The reason I called Sentence #2 "View #1" was because --- that's a direct contrast to the author's conclusion --- the author wants to spend public money on libraries, and sentence #2 expresses the exact opposite of that.

So, first bold is one view, second bold is another view. (D) describes that reasonably well.

What's wrong with (B)?
(B) The first is evidence that supports one of two contradictory points of view; the second is the second point of view.
Well, I agree with the second half --- the second bold is the second point of view. The first part though --- think about it this way:
Sentence #1 = they have views: libraries are outdated
Sentence #2 = they have fiscal recommendation: don't fund libraries.
Which way does cause-and-effect point? Does it point from Sentence #1 to Sentence #2, or vice versa?
Do they want to cut funding to libraries because they think they're outdated?
Or do they think libraries are outdated because they want to cut funding to them?
I would say the former is a much more likely order of logic. People decide such-and-such an institution is no good, then they start to gripe about tax money going to it.
The thing that is the supporting reason is the evidence --- so sentence #1 is evidence for sentence #2, which is the view itself, not the other way around.
Sentence #2 is NOT "evidence that supports one of two contradictory points of view" ---- rather, it IS that contradictory view, and sentence #1 is the evidence.
Does that make sense?

What's wrong with (E)?
(E) The first concedes a consideration that weighs against the viewpoint of the author; the second is that viewpoint.
First of all, the author made no concessions --- in the first two sentences, the author was just objective descriptive and dispassionate. Conceding means the author says something like, "I hate to admit it, but my opponents are right when they say ..." Concession has to involve some kind of approval given to the opposing view. This author merely states that view, and says nothing in support of it.
Second, that sentence is not a "consideration" --- it's not a thoughtful reflective introspective insight into something meaningful about the issue. No, it's just those loud mouths saying, "We don't want tax money going to the outdated library!" That's a statement of fact, and not a particularly delicate one at that.
A consideration would be along the lines of "It occurs to me, if one were to think through the long-term consequences of such a policy, etc." It connotes thoughtfulness, a product of reflection, something that involves insight that would not be readily apparent to everyone. Sentence #2 is nothing of the sort.
Sentence #2 is simply a direct statement of the view that the author opposes, no more.

Does that make sense?
Mike