This is too strong to support. The stimulus only says that a function of style (not the primary function) is to indicate the intended meaning of their work. The stimulus also says nothing about augmenting the meaning of words.

The stimulus says that writers rely on style (the arrangement of words and sentences) to indicate their intended meaning. All you need to show is that the intended meaning is indicated in part which is a very low standard of proof to meet.

This comparative statement is not supported and requires a few assumptions to make it work. You have to assume that it is easier to understand a speaker's gesture and tone of voice than a writer’s style.

The stimulus does not support this. You need a few assumptions to make this work.

There is no link between the writer’s style and the aesthetic value of the writing (much less something that would completely determine its worth).