This is stronger than what the author claims. She wants us to refrain from “wholly” condemning Hogan, but that doesn’t mean not holding him responsible at all.

The author never discusses how responsibility should be divided, let alone whether the robber should be held responsible. This is beyond the scope of the argument.

This accurately restates the conclusion. When asking us to agree that Hogan “not be wholly condemned,” the author is saying that Hogan isn’t entirely blameworthy. The author supports this with her premise (mistook for robber).

This is stated in the argument but no support is offered, so it can’t be a conclusion. Instead, this statement is a premise to support the conclusion that Hogan isn’t entirely to blame.

This can be inferred from the argument, but it’s more of a contextual claim to explain why the author needs to convince us that Hogan shouldn’t be fully condemned—because other things were not equal. (E) is the idea that the author tries to qualify.