Explanation

Creating a filter: if we don't draw any immediate conclusions from the prompt, we can go to the answer choices.

Finding objective defects: the answer choices naturally fall into two groups, one containing (A) and (B), and the second containing (C) through (E). We have to be careful about the modifying phrase that starts with "arguing" in the original sentence. It's unclear in its reference, because it comes after and therefore modifies the pamphlet, but says "arguing in a pamphlet" as if modifying Stafford. Better to have it clearly modify the pamphlet. That decision limits us to (C) through (E). Choice (C) uses the phrase "powers from"; this is non-idiomatic English without a verb prior to "powers." You could say you "advocate a transfer of power from X to Y," but to say you "advocate power from X" isn't sensible English. Choice (C) is further twisted because the powers are identified as "parliamentary" in a way that doesn't make it clear that they are initially not parliamentary. So (C) is out. Choice (D) has a good feature, which is to introduce the thing being advocated in a clause after the word "that"; we generally favor that construction. But here, that construction is not parallel with the phrase "and for peace..." later in the sentence. Choice (E) is parallel in that way: the pamphlet argues for one thing and for another. The correct answer is (E).