I guess you didn't like the answers you go on the Princeton Review forum? Well, for the record, here was what I said there:
It's been a bit since I took the LSAT, but I got a 170, so I'll give it a shot. This does not seem to be a good question example. I don't recall seeing anything this bad on the test. My guess is that NONE of the answers are correct. To break it down:
"Most radicals who argue for violent revolution and complete overthrow of our existing society have no clear idea what will emerge from the destruction. They just assert that things are so bad now that any change would have to be a change for the better. But surely this is mistaken, for things might actually turn out to be worse." Is the statement.
"The most effective point that can be raised against this argument is that the author says nothing about," Is the question you are trying to answer.
That is, what did he leave out that would have made his argument better?
I would choose:
(B) the specific results of the revolution that would be changes for the worse.
It is relevent to his argument of the possibility of things turning worse and if he had included information about this, his argument would have been better. All the other answers would be irrelevent to the arguers argument about things turning worse.
If you get this on the test, skip it.
PS: I would use only real questions from the LSAT to study, not this one.