I’m not entirely sure because there was no text to read in order for me to find an exact answer. However, if I had to guess based on the subject and the quality of the sentences written I would go with B or D, in that order.
The other two (A, C) are suggesting that altruism is not ever really done out of sheer empathy (they take a negative, or pessimistic point of view. Some might even call it realistic), and that anything done “for the good of others” always has an ulterior motive; be it power, likability, future wealth, or something that would benefit they and theirs in the soon to bear future). Essentially, no one does ANYTHING out of sheer good will and kindness. Thus, why not do things anonymously without flaunting their name about? Why? Because by telling everyone so-and-so donated X amount of dollars to said people or organizations, now it is KNOWN how generous they are, which immediately makes them likable or popular.
However, without having read the text, I believe, whether people believe it or not - there is still an element of “pure altruism” given in some folks. SOME people are able to not care for anything of themselves, but only to the cause which they are giving. I also believe whole- heartedly, whether it’s true or not , selflessness to some capacity is essential to human survival, and humans HAVE empathy built into our core being, so it is entirely possible. That, of course, is just an educated (hopeful) guess.
The auther uses those details to paint a picture in your mind of what is going on in Madame Loisels life its saying that she is not really poor but also not really rich but she wants to be rich
