This is accurate. The effect Inez anticipates is that customers would be more willing to buy antiques. Anika claims that hiring professional appraisers would not only be redundant, since their customers are already antiques experts, but would push prices up, thus making customers less willing to buy. Thus, Anika suggests that hiring appraisers would have an effect opposite to what Inez anticipates.

This is a tricky answer choice, because it is true that Anika believes Inez's plan should not be adopted, and that the plan will have at least one undesirable consequence. But Anika also never says that Inez’s plan will be effective in any way. Her assessment of Inez's plan is entirely negative: for Anika, raising the prices of the goods is not simply an additional, undesirable consequence of hiring appraisers. Raising the prices completely overrides any positive effect hiring appraisers would have on customers' willingness to buy goods, so that the overall impact of Inez's plan would be negative.

Anika's argument focuses only on the weakness of Inez's plan. She does not suggest an alternative plan.

This answer choice is very vague: if the "problem under discussion" is how to sell antiques better, neither Inez nor Anika mentions any authorities with special knowledge of that problem. If the "problem" is just whether antiques are genuine or not, Anika does not deny that antiques experts exist. In fact, she says their customers are antiques experts. She just denies that one subset of those experts--the professional appraisers-- are necessary for this particular situation.

Anika does not present a counterexample, or claim that Inez's conclusion is too broad. Rather, she makes a causal claim about unintended consequences and the net effect of Inez’s plan to show that Inez's prediction is incorrect.