This is an Argument Evaluation question because we are asked to evaluate whether the argument succeeds or fails.
The attorney for the criminal defendant accused the government of destroying evidence that would have supported the defendant in the case. The government responded by saying there IS no evidence that would have supported the defendant. Thus, the government did not respond to what it was being accused of. The government did not deny or admit that it tampered with evidence. The government merely stated that there is (i.e. currently) no evidence that could help the defendant's case.
This leaves open the possibility that the reason there is currently no evidence that would have supported the defendant in this case is because the government destroyed it. Therefore, as answer choice (A) states, the government's reply "leaves open the question of whether the government had destroyed such evidence." So, in this case, we can say that the government's reply fails.
Hope that was helpful! Let us know if you have any other questions.
