This is too extreme. The author doesn’t argue that Olsen’s conclusions are correct.

This best captures the author’s attitude. His endorsement of Olsen’s conclusions isn’t expressly stated; it’s implicit. He describes Olsen’s reasoning in detail and discusses her response to potential counterevidence. At no point does the author suggest Olsen’s conclusions are implausible or that her reasoning is suspect. So there’s at least some support that the author endorses Olsen’s conclusions.

“Ambivalence” means having mixed feelings. There’s no evidence the author has mixed feelings about Olsen’s conclusions. He never expresses any doubt or other negative opinion about them. Although he raises potential counterevidence to Olsen’s conclusions, he does so for the purpose of showing Olsen’s response to that evidence.

There’s no evidence the author is skeptical about Olsen’s conclusions. He never expresses any doubt or other negative opinion about them. Although he raises potential counterevidence to Olsen’s conclusions, he does so for the purpose of showing Olsen’s response to that evidence.

There’s no evidence the author disagrees with Olsen’s conclusions. He never expresses any doubt or other negative opinion about them. Although he raises potential counterevidence to Olsen’s conclusions, he does so for the purpose of showing Olsen’s response to that evidence.