The author in this passage says that many people offer the French Revolution as evidence for the claim that societies can reap more benefit than harm from a revolution. The author then weakens this evidence by stating that the French Revolution differs from the typical revolution because government work continued, so many disruptions were avoided. In other words, the author notes that since the French Revolution was a unique revolution, it is not good evidence to support the larger claim about revolutions.
(A) "demonstrating that the claim argued against is internally inconsistent" The author never directly speaks on the claim ("that societies can reap more benefit than harm from a revolution"). The author does not say that societies reap more harm than benefit from revolutions, nor does the author point out contradictions within the claim. Instead, the author only speaks to the evidence for the claim as being unrepresentative. So, (A) is not the best answer.
(C) "opposing a claim by undermining evidence offered in support of that claim" This is the correct answer. The author is undermining evidence (by noting the French Revolution is unrepresentative) that is offered in support of the claim ("that societies can reap more benefit than harm from a revolution").
Does that make sense? Please let us know if you have any other questions!
