This does not weaken the expert’s argument. Just because the evidence would have been stronger with 100 tests, that doesn’t mean that ten tests were too few. This doesn’t undermine the adequacy of the expert’s observations.

This does not weaken the expert’s argument. Some experts sometimes fudging their data tells us nothing about this particular expert, nor the quality of the expert’s observations. Like (E), this is just a weak attempt at an ad hominem attack.

This weakens the expert’s argument because it suggests that the ten tests may not be a reliable sample of how much fabric the defendant’s blood stains. In other words, this undermines the expert’s assumption that ten tests are enough.

This does not weaken the expert’s argument, because the argument is only concerned with defendant’s blood behaves, not anyone else’s blood. If anything, this shows that the test is able to show if someone’s blood stains a larger area, and is therefore more reliable.

This does not weaken the expert’s argument. Like (B), this is an attempt at an ad hominem attack on the expert. However, just some experts not truly being authorities tells us nothing about this particular expert or this particular argument.