This is the best answer. P1 describes the artistic phenomenon — certain artists painted stuff that was new. Next the author describes one interpration — these artists were prophetic about politics/society. Then the author proposes an alternative interpretation — these artists were actually just focused on artistic innovation. Finally the author presents support to show that these artists probably weren’t predicting changes in politics/society.

Notice that (B) doesn’t contain anything about competing views — there’s nothing here that capture the idea that the author was disagreeing with something. That’s an easy way to eliminate this answer. In addition, the author doesn’t end by speculating about the importance of the consequences of the pre-WWI painters’ art.

(C) suggests the author defends the traditional interpretation of the artistic phenomenon. But the author actually rejects the interpretation that’s discussed in the beginning. So it wouldn’t make sense to say the author dismisses criticisms of the interpretation brought up in the beginning.

The author doesn’t dismiss both interpretations. One of the two interpretations is the author’s — she supports her own interpretation and rejects the other. But she doesn’t dismiss her own interpretation.

Notice that (E) doesn’t contain anything about competing views — there’s nothing here that captures the idea that the author was disagreeing with something. That’s an easy way to eliminate this answer. In addition, the author doesn’t end by advocating that we try to recreate anything.