The author never suggests a need for a new approach that synthesizes the two language camps. In fact, the author might slightly favor the prescriptivist approach, based on her defense of that position.

The author never states an opinion about etymologies of words (origins of words) and whether they should or should not influence usage.

We don’t get the author’s opinion about whether moral considerations should or should not influence usage. Although the egalitarian objection described in the second paragraph views the prescriptivists’ approach to language as immoral, the author never expresses any agreement or disagreement with that view. The author simply tells us what the egalitarian objection is.

The author never expresses an opinion about the value of scientific methods to studying grammar. Although the author does believe that language usage is not like scientific laws, that doesn’t mean the author believes scientific methods can’t help study language. Maybe we can use science to study how language is actually used among different peoples, or to study the difficulty of following different language rules.

(E) is supported by the author’s opinion in the last paragraph. The author thinks the descriptivists’ scientific objection fails because there are attempts to regulate language that have succeeded.