This is correct. The essayist grants that the objection is accurate: if someone claimed to have knowledge through clairvoyance, we would not accept their claims as knowledge. But the essayist says the reason we would reject their claims is our own belief about whether clairvoyance counts as a reliable process, not some issue with knowledge itself or its definition.

This might be a tempting answer choice because in theory, it seems like the essayist would agree that if clairvoyance were actually reliable, as the hypothetical scenario proposes, then it could provide knowledge, even if we didn't believe it could. But it's really important to see that while we can infer this view based on the essayist's criteria, the essayist nowhere asserts this specific claim to be true. The essayist's response to the criticism focuses on our reasons for accepting or rejecting a knowledge claim — he doesn't talk about whether any claim actually is knowledge or not, just about the reasons we would accept a claim as knowledge.

The essayist never claims that clairvoyance is reliable or unreliable, or that we should believe one or the other of these claims. His argument is purely descriptive, saying that we actually don't believe clairvoyance is reliable, but that if we did, we would accept that knowledge can come through clairvoyance.

The essayist doesn't talk about personal choice. The essayist starts his argument by defining what knowledge is, and defends that definition against an objection. It seems like he agrees with this definition, which contains no element of personal choice.

This might be tempting, but it's important to see that the essayist doesn't actually say whether, in the hypothetical scenario where clairvoyance is reliable, it actually leads to knowledge or not. We can make inferences about what the essayist believes about this, but what the essayist actually says is focused on the reasons why we would reject knowledge claims based on clairvoyance, and what it would take for us to accept them: our own beliefs about the reliability of clairvoyance. The essayist doesn't say whether the clairvoyance scenario actually does or does not fit the definition of knowledge — he just talks about why we would believe it does or does not.