Under timed condition, it took me a long time because I had to go back and look over the whole portion to figure this out. I should have been more thorough in reading and keeping the idea of what the paragraph was about.
@ 9-30 starts with the events that people conceive as real whether it is a mistake or not, and then it goes on to the cases where people express emotional response even in cases that they know it's not real.
Let's get into answer choices.
A) “irrationality” is not covered here, but in third paragraph.
B) This paragraph rather claims that there is not much difference in how people feel from real events and cinematic depiction. No "contrast"
C) Degree of “intensity” of what people have perceived is not distinguished from "real" and "cinematic depiction."
D) We are talking about responses to the art as well, not solely about “fear.” Too narrow scoped.
E) Just as discussed above, and directly referring to 26-30, the author is challenging Frijda by showing the consistency of emotional response regardless of whether it is real or not. This is it. Correct