This is supported by a line in the middle of the second paragraph: “there are those who are outright dismissive of The Wanderers because it contains an autobiographical framework and is populated with real-world characters.” This indicates that critics thought the novel would have been better if it didn’t have an autobiographical framework and wasn’t populated with real-world characters.

(B) twists the critics’ opinion. They think the novel had too many autobiographical elements. That doesn’t mean they think the novel should have been called or presented as an autobiography. Instead, the critics may have preferred that the novel simply remove the autobiographical elements.

The last sentence of the second paragraph tells us that critics didn’t like how Mphahlele’s work didn’t provide a “road map” for bringing his vision about. But that doesn’t mean they think Mphahlele’s work didn’t display a vision. They saw Mphahlele’s vision, but just didn’t see a way to get there.

We’re not told that critics dismissed Mphahlele’s work because it delivered social criticisms. They didn’t have a problem with the fact that he criticized society, only with the lack of a road map to get to Mphahlele’s vision of the future.

This isn’t listed as one of the reasons critics dismissed The Wanderers. The critics didn’t have a problem with the presence of relationships in the work; they didn’t like that these relationships involved autobiographical elements.