Step 1: The argument in the passage is that although the 2001 census showed a sharp fall in literacy rate compared to 1991, the rise in literacy rate by 2006 implies overall progress between 1991 and 2006.
Step 2: To refute this argument, we need a statement showing that the progress between 1991 and 2006 is not genuine or not enough to compensate for the earlier fall.
Step 3: Option (D) directly challenges the argument by stating that the rate of fall in literacy (1991–2001) was greater than the rate of rise (2001–2006). This means that overall, the literacy rate in 2006 would still be lower than in 1991, thereby disproving the claim of overall progress.
Step 4: Other options do not refute the argument:
- (A) talks about causes, not about the net progress.
- (B) strengthens reliability of the data.
- (C) supports improvement.
- (E) explains the cause of rise but doesn’t negate progress.
Hence, the best refutation is Option (D).