This wouldn’t damage the argument, so failing to address it can’t be a flaw. Whether the poem had one author or more than one doesn’t affect the reasoning of the argument.

There is no popular opinion in the stimulus. The only opinions are Dr. Abner’s and the translator’s. The translator’s support comes from things we don’t know (author’s original intent).

This wouldn’t damage the argument, so failing to address it can’t be a flaw. If the author didn’t have any intent, then Dr. Abner’s criticism that the translator’s effect doesn’t match the author’s original intent is unjustified. If anything, (C) strengthens the argument.

The translator’s support doesn’t come from circumstances specific to Dr. Abner; it comes from a lack of knowledge that applies to everyone. The translator does reject an argument, but the rest of (D) is descriptively inaccurate.

This matches the leap in logic that we outlined in our flaw identification/prediction: Just because you don’t know the exact answer to something doesn’t mean you can’t have a list of things that you’ve eliminated as possible answers.