Mary does not question Tom's claim that past reversals didn't cause harm to the legal system. In fact, she provides a reason for why those past reversals did not cause harm — because the precedents overturned were old and clearly outdated — while the recent reversals likely will.

Mary never states that she agrees with Tom that the critics are "politically motivated." It seems like she might disagree, given that she is defending the critics' argument, but she doesn't directly respond to that part of Tom's conclusion.

It's important to see that although Tom mentions the critics of a certain practice — overturning legal precedents — and rejects their argument, Tom himself does not criticize that practice. Nor does Mary defend the practice of overturning legal precedent in general by saying that it "usually" comes after due deliberation. Mary isn't making a value judgment that overturning legal precedent is usually valid — she is just making a descriptive claim about the difference between past courts' overturning of legal precedents and more recent cases. Mary also doesn't cite any specific evidence.

This is incorrect. While Tom makes certain assumptions to get to his conclusion that the critics' argument is incorrect and politically motivated, those assumptions aren't "contradicted" by his premise that past courts also overturned precedents and no legal chaos ensued. Nor does Mary claim there is a contradiction in Tom's argument: she just presents additional, relevant information to show why his analogy with the past doesn't work.

This is correct. Tom had argued that since past high courts overturned precedents without causing harm to the legal system, the current courts' reversal of precedents will likewise not cause harm. Mary points out that the past high courts' approach to overturning precedents was very different from the current court's approach, with different consequences likely to result from each approach.