The argument never claims that quantum theory’s consequences are less counterintuitive than are those of its competitors, so this rule doesn’t trigger.

Quantum theory has been subjected to rigorous attempts to disprove it, and has still made accurate predictions. That means this rule triggers, and it leads to the correct conclusion that we should accept quantum theory, thus justifying the argument’s reasoning.

This leads to the wrong conclusion—the argument never claims that quantum theory’s consequences should not be considered counterintuitive. In fact, the argument concedes that point, and just says that we should accept quantum theory even so.

This rule doesn’t trigger, because it poses “serious attempts at disproof” as a necessary condition—and fulfilling a necessary condition doesn’t tell us anything. Also, we’re not talking about conditions for rejection, we’re talking about when to accept a theory.

This rule is essentially a backwards version of (B), so instead of giving us the sufficient condition to accept a theory that we need, it creates a necessary condition. That just can’t bridge between the argument’s premises and conclusion.