This supports the critics’ claim that the domestic novel aspect of the narrative overshadowed the slave aspects of the book. (A) tells us that most readers thought it was merely a domestic novel and didn’t see it as anything else; this is evidence the domestic aspect of the book overshadowed other aspects.

If anything, this undermines the position by showing that the slave aspect of the book might not have been overshadowed by the domestic novel conventions.

This doesn’t strengthen, because it doesn’t provide any evidence that the slave aspect of the book was overshadowed by domestic novel conventions. (C) tells us that scholars think Jacobs’ narrative wouldn’t have been effective without the conventions of the domestic novel. If anything, this suggests that the domestic novel aspect of the book might have contributed to Jacobs’ message regarding slavery.

This doesn’t strengthen, because it doesn’t provide any evidence that the slave aspect of the book was overshadowed by domestic novel conventions. It doesn’t show that people overlooked the slavery aspect of the novel or paid more attention to the domestic novel aspects.

This doesn’t strengthen, because it doesn’t provide any evidence that the slave aspect of the book was overshadowed by domestic novel conventions. It doesn’t show that people overlooked the slavery aspect of the novel or paid more attention to the domestic novel aspects.