Are mutations a source of genetic variation?
Going through the possible answers

(A) Rates tend to be very high in most populations.

This is a very unclear statement. What does &quot;high&quot; mean? In humans, the average mutation rate per reproduction per nucleotide is of the order of $10^{-8}$ (Rahbari et al., 2016) (hence of the order of 10 - 100 mutations for the whole genome). Whether someone wants to call that high or low is up to this person original intuition.

(B) generally lethal

No, that's wrong (Robert et al., 2018)

(C) irreversible

It is a little unclear. By &quot;irreversible&quot;, do they mean that the function of the gene (or of any other functional element in the genome) cannot be restored or do they mean that a specific mutation cannot be exactly undone by a future mutation. In both cases, however, it would be wrong!
Mutations that restore the function of a gene (or any other genomic functional element) are called reverse mutations (aka. suppressor mutations; I personally don't know of any difference between the concepts of reverse mutation and suppressor mutation). Most reverse mutations are likely to act via a second mutation that restores the function of the gene rather than undoing the previous mutation. It does not mean however that it is impossible a mutation that perfectly undoes a previous mutation. Consider a substitution inverting A into T. A reverse mutation could do just the opposite.

(D) Only certain gene locations are affected.

Mutation rate varies throughout the genome but all of the genome is subject to some non-zero mutation rate.

(E) source of genetic variation

Yes, mutations are the ultimate source of genetic variation in populations, while genetic drift and directional selection removes variation.
As other users have highlighted in their answers, many mutations (incl. synonymous mutations but not only and soma mutations) do not bring up any the underlying genetic variance of phenotypic traits. These details are however mainly irrelevant; what matters is that it still remain true that (some) mutations increase genetic variance.
We could also add the complication as to wonder whether by &quot;genetic variance&quot;, they meant &quot;genetic variance underlying phenotypic variance&quot; (which is its standard usage) or &quot;genetic variance where one allele is given an arbitrary value and another (problem arising for loci with more than 2 alleles segregating). More information about the terminology and the math when it comes to quantifying genetic variance in the post Why is a heritability coefficient not an index of how “genetic” something is?
What I would have answered

The correct answer is (C). These recent conclusions about mutations—recall that Darwin did not know of mutations—are all the reverse of those listed in the choices, with the exception of choice (C), the correct answer. Rates, in fact, tend to be below in populations, mutations are generally not lethal, any gene location can be affected, and they are felt to be the source of genetic variation. Darwin felt over-production of offspring was the source of potential variation.

I disagree. To me, B and D are wrong, A is unclear, C is slightly unclear but wrong in both interpretations I can think of and E is correct. I would have answered E.
About the justification given

Rates, in fact, tend to be below in populations [..]

This piece of the sentence is not even grammatically correct. Below what? It highlights that A is unclear.

they are felt to be the source of genetic variation

The term &quot;felt&quot; is poorly chosen here IMO, but this piece of the sentence seems to rather give credit to answer E. I think, whoever wrote this answer mistakenly wrote C instead of E

Darwin felt over-production of offspring was the source of potential variation.

Really, who cares about Darwin thoughts on the subject here?! But in any case, this sounds like a misrepresentation of Darwin's ideas. More info can be found in Charlesworth and Charlesworth (2009) and also maybe this post