Not supported, because the direction of collission matters. If plates collide in the same direction, we’d expect very few earthquakes.

Not supported, because the author never gets into the likelihood of earthquakes at different points on a plane of contact. It’s possible that earthquakes are more likely at the center or at the edge or at some other spots. We don’t have any basis to differentiate one point from another on a plane of contact.

Not supported, because the author doesn’t suggest that seismically quite zones are at risk of earthquakes. Rather, these areas have plates that collide in the same direction, so the subduction in these areas don’t produce much seismic friction.

Anti-supported, because we’ve already identified places with high subduction but few or no earthquakes.

Supported. We’re told that when plates collide in opposite direction, the angle of descent is shallow, “allowing for a much larger plane of contact between the plates.” This creates “a great deal of resistance.” The suggestion is that a larger plane of contact implies more earthquake-producing friction. So there’s evidence that earthquakes are more likely when there is a large plane of contact as opposed to a less-than-large plane of contact.