the arguments cannot be irrelevant because she is able to summarize different ideas from several different fields of study

Moreover, the ideas in the mind of his audience cannot be discredited or biased because she is able to craft good ideas even though weird (uncanny)

she presented theories already in the minds of her contemporaries. Now, if the ideas are already there makes no sense to say that the same ideas are discredited.

Or they are well established or partially formed.

But E is also no good because IF the ideas a fully formed already intheir minds then her job would be meaningless because we do know that she is good at synthesizing good arguments

I hope this helps

The important idea is that her theories appear to present with "uncanny aptness" past ideas (already_______ in the minds). Aptness means appropriate or suitable in the circumstances. This shows that the ideas must have been already formulated but not clearly, for her theories to present it aptly. Thus the correct answer is half-formulated. There is no point in presenting ideas that were already discredited in the minds of her contemporaries. And there is nothing to crow about presenting ideas already well-established in the minds of her contemporaries.

The fact that the ideas are half-formulated in the minds of her contemporaries also implies that the ideas are new. And therefore she must be synthesizing emergent ideas drawn from many fields of study. We can easily eliminate superseded (obsolete or replace) for the same reason and so also irrelevant. And irrelevant doesn't make sense anyhow.