(A) doesn’t involve an arrangement that gives off the impression the arranger succeeded at what they were trying to do. So there’s no basis to assert that the arrangement is aesthetically pleasing. Also, the principle doesn’t tell us when a group of objects should be rearranged.

Although this arrangement is less pleasing than others, that doesn’t imply the arrangement is NOT aesthetically pleasing. It can still be very aesthetically pleasing, and it could give off the impression that the arranger mostly succeeded in what they were trying to do, even if there are other arrangements that are more pleasing.

We don’t know how the lack of symmetry relates to whether the arrangement is aesthetically pleasing. This answer doesn’t tell us that the arranger was trying to make the objects symmetrical.

(D) asserts that making the panels more symmetrical would make the arrangement seem more like the artist succeeded at what she wanted to do. So, according to the principle, making the panels more symmetrical would make the arrangement more aesthetically pleasing.

We don’t know how the degree to which an arrangement seems fully planned relates to how much the arrangement gives the impression the arranger succeeded at what they were trying to do. Maybe the arranger wanted the arrangement to seem fully planned?