The anti-Freudian conclusion is the view of other psychologists; that is not the conclusion of this argument. Our psychologist disagrees with the anti-Freudian conclusion. The claim in the question stem supports our psychologist’s conclusion, not the view of other psychologists.

The conclusion mentioned in (B) may be implied but it is not the psychologist’s explicit conclusion; the psychologist just concludes that physiological explanations of dreams are incomplete. The conclusion mentioned in (B) is not explicitly stated.

The claim in the question stem is used to demonstrate that the anti-Freudian theory is incomplete, but it is not used to suggest anything regarding the completeness of the Freudian theory.

The difficulty of explaining dreaming is not a consideration of the argument; we only learn about one method of explaining dreams that is incomplete. The psychologist is not arguing that anything is difficult.

The claim in the question stem undermines the claim that physiological explanations are enough to explain the phenomenon of dreaming; this endorsement of physiological explanations is what some psychologists use to argue against Freud’s theory.