This passage is a little confusing as there are two conclusions presented in it.
The first conclusion is the first sentence. The author concludes that there is little plausibility to the claim that it is absurd to criticize people for being critical. Why? Because people must assess each other and not all these assessments will be positive or uncritical.
The second conclusion is a counter argument introduced by the indicator word 'however.' The first argument is that we should not believe it is absurd to criticize people when they are critical. The second half of the passage builds on and counters this by claiming that, while it is okay to criticize critical people, there is also some wisdom behind the injunction against being judgemental. Why? Because the act of being judgemental is a negative assessment of another that precedes a serious effort at understanding.
Now that we have an understanding of the passage, we can go through the answer choices.
A is incorrect because it is a premise supporting the counter argument.
B is incorrect because it is the opposite of what is concluded by the passage.
C is incorrect because it concedes some plausibility in the initial conclusion whereas the passage attributes little plausibility.
D is incorrect because it is a premise supporting the initial argument.
E is incorrect because it is a direct restatement of the conclusion of the counterargument.
Hope this is helpful! Please let us know if you have any further questions.
Anthony-WurstAugust 11, 2021
Hello: Your explanation for "E" has a typo. An important one :) It says that E is incorrect. Just thought you might want to fix that for those who read it.
