There’s evidence that some members of small countries and representatives of organizations thought that Article 1 wasn’t strong enough. But this doesn’t imply the author believes Article 1 was ineffectual or that it was ambiguous.

Not supported, because the author has a generally positive view toward the UDHR as demonstrated by the claim that it “clearly deserves recognition.”

Not supported, because the author says that the UDHR had to go through an “elaborate” 8-stage drafting process, under which each article was debated.

Not supported, because although the author thinks the UDHR should have been a legally binding document, the author never suggests that it should have included more rights in its list of basic human rights.

Supported. We know that some groups wanted language that required member states to take actions. This suggests that the UDHR would be closer to their intentions if it required states to take actions through binding legal obligations.