Walter: For the economically privileged in a society to tolerate an injustice perpetrated against one of society’s disadvantaged is not only just morally wrong but also shortsighted: a system that inflicts an injustice on a disadvantaged person today can equally well inflict that same injustice on a well-to-do person tomorrow.
Larissa: In our society, the wealthy as well as the well-educated can protect themselves against all sorts of injustices suffered by the less well-off. Allowing such injustices to persist is bad policy not because it places everyone at equal risk of injustice but because it is a potent source of social unrest.

Larissa responds to Walter by doing which one of the following?

(A) giving reason to doubt the truth of Walter’s conclusion
(B) drawing implausible consequences from Walter’s assumptions
(C) questioning Walter’s authority to address matters of social policy
(D) providing an alternative reason for accepting the truth of Walter’s conclusion
(E) charging Walter with stopping short of recognizing the full implications of his position
_________________

(A) giving reason to doubt the truth of Walter’s conclusion - Larissa does not doubt Walter's conclusion

(B) drawing implausible consequences from Walter’s assumptions - Larissa is technically not challenging Walter's stance. She agrees with it. So option B is out

(C) questioning Walter’s authority to address matters of social policy - same as B

(D) providing an alternative reason for accepting the truth of Walter’s conclusion - This holds true, considering the tone of the sentence

(E) charging Walter with stopping short of recognizing the full implications of his position - I really got confused between D & E. Ended up choosing D but I am not 100% sure why E should be eliminated as an answer choice