Final answer:
The author would best counter the claim that Ms. Graves was clumsy by showing evidence of other people slipping that night, noting the extra challenge of carrying hockey gear, and referencing groundskeeper records of the salting schedule.
Step-by-step explanation:
The author would likely respond to the counterclaim that Ms. Graves fell because she was clumsy by providing evidence that the circumstance of the fall was not solely due to her clumsiness but also due to the negligence of the Fordham Center. An effective response could be pointing out that several others slipped on the ice that same night, showing that the risk of falling was not unique to Ms. Graves and suggests a broader hazard in the parking lot.
The author could also argue for the Fordham Center's responsibility by explaining that Ms. Graves and her son were carrying armloads of hockey equipment, which would make anyone more susceptible to falling, especially if adequate precautions such as re-salting the parking lot were not taken by the center.
Lastly, disputing the argument of clumsiness could involve sharing the groundskeeper's records which show that despite knowing the cold weather forecast, there was no further salting after 2:00 pm. This demonstrates a potential lack of proper care taken by Fordham Center to prevent such accidents.