The argument mentions an “adage,” or old saying ("beauty is in the eye of the beholder"), but it doesn’t exclusively rely on it to prove its point. The conclusion also—in fact, mainly—relies on the second sentence. So, this answer doesn’t accurately describe the argument.

The argument’s conclusion is limited to whether objective standards exist for paintings and sculptures, so it’s OK that the author didn’t consider whether people also disagree about other types of art. So, this choice is descriptively accurate, but it doesn’t identify a flaw.

The argument’s conclusion is limited to whether objective standards exist for paintings and sculptures, so it’s OK that the author didn’t consider whether objective standards exist for other types of art. So, this choice is descriptively accurate, but it doesn’t identify a flaw.

The argument assumes that people must disagree because they must have different standards for good art (i.e., there is no “objective” standard). But it’s possible that everyone has the same standard for good art, and some are just bad at knowing if art meets that standard.

This isn’t a flaw because the conclusion doesn’t depend on whether the disagreement comes from non-experts. It relies on the premise that people disagree (which we accept) and the unstated premise that disagreement means different standards (which we can challenge as flawed).