Although the author does discuss flaws in other methods of getting impartiality, (A) leaves out the author’s advocacy for a particular solution. The author wants us to rethink what it means for a jury to be impartial. (A) doesn’t mention this solution.

Although the author does mention that some countries have abandoned voir dire, (B) leaves out the author’s advocacy for a particular solution. The author wants us to rethink what it means for a jury to be impartial. (B) doesn’t mention this solution.

The author never suggests that voir dire is the “most” flawed remedy. In addition, (C) leaves out the author’s advocacy for a particular solution. The author wants us to rethink what it means for a jury to be impartial. (C) doesn’t mention this solution.

This is supported by the criticism described in P3, but (D) leaves out the author’s advocacy for a particular solution. The author wants us to rethink what it means for a jury to be impartial. (D) doesn’t mention this solution.

This best captures the main point, which is the author’s solution proposed at the end of the passage. Rather than think of impartiality as a requirement that jurors not have any exposure to a case, we should think of it as a process of deliberation among a panel of informed, curious, and opinionated people.