Misdirection. The passage author says James does this—not traditional detective fiction.

Misdirection. There’s no suggestion that plot devices are ever transparent. The only thing the author says about plot devices is that James’s are pretty contrived and that this is a sign of how she’s cramped by the crime genre. This suggests that crime novels would usually have better devices to advance the plot, but it doesn’t suggest anything about the “transparency” of those devices. What is transparent in typical crime novels, though, is how the detective manages to solve the crime. The author takes James’s lack of transparency there as another, separate sign that she’s cramped by the genre. So although the author does talk about both transparency and plot devices, they’re not related to each other.

Anti-supported. The passage author suggests that solving crimes through intuition is an exception to the norm for detective fiction. He states that in James’s novels, the reader is often left just having to assume that the detective solved the crime through intuition, and he uses this point as support for why detective fiction isn’t a great fit for James. So the author must believe that detective fiction typically offers other reasons, rather than intuition, for how the detective solved the crime.

Strongly supported. The passage author calls James’s decision to leave questions unanswered and distribute guilt among various parties a “rebellion” against the “neatness” of detective fiction. If ambiguity and spreading culpability around is against the norms of detective fiction, we can infer that detective fiction is traditionally more straightforward and clear in assigning culpability for the crime.

Misdirection. James’s supporters say that James herself does this. Nothing in the passage suggests that traditional detective fiction does this.