Since insects with vision similar to bees do not need to perceive color, there is no reason that bees must have developed their vision to perceive color. In other words, (A) says that perceiving color is likely not necessary for bees’ vision, strengthening the author’s claim.

This does not affect the argument. The word “some” is too ambiguous to tell us anything meaningful this situation—it could mean that one flower relies on an insect other than bees, which doesn’t do anything for our argument.

This does not affect the argument, and for it to have an impact, we would be required to make too many assumptions. The number of species of flowers and bees doesn’t tell us about how likely either orgnanism was to evolve in response to the other.

This does not affect the argument, and for it to have an impact, we would be required to make too many assumptions. Some nonflowering plants may rely on bees, but that doesn’t tell us about how they (or any other kind of flower) may have evolved in response to bees’ vision.

This does not affect the argument. The fact that bees rely solely on flowers for food does not tell us whether their vision evolved in response to flower color. Maybe they depend on flowers for food, and their vision is adapted to be well-suited to avoiding predators.