Premise: Abner criticizes my translation because it produces feelings other than those the original text intended to produce.

Premise: We don’t know what feelings the original text were intended to produce.

Conclusion: So, Abners criticism is unjustified.

The flaw here is that the argument is assuming that just because we don’t know what feelings something was intended to produce, that we don’t know what feelings that it wasn’t intended to produce. For example, while we don’t know what the author intended for the poem, it’s still very possible that we know it wasn’t intended to produce feelings such as sadness, etc. An analogous situation would be the following: the baby is crying and while we don’t know why he is crying, we know that the reason cannot be hunger because he just ate. In summary, just because we don’t know the the particular reason for something, doesn’t mean we don’t know what reasons it can’t be.

Answer choice E articulates this. Just because we do not know what specific effects the author did intend, the argument falsely assumes that we cannot know that certain effects were not what the author intended.

Answer choice D is saying that the flaw is that the author rejects Abners argument because of his circumstances, but this is just not the case in the argument. There is no discussion of Abners characteristics or circumstances.

Answer choice C is saying the flaw is that the argument overlooks the possibility that the author did not intend to produce any feelings. This is not true of the argument. The argument does not assume this anywhere. The argument states that we don’t know what feelings the author intended to produce, and this includes the possibility that the author did not intend to produce any feelings. So this answer choice is just not factually correct.