This is a parallel reasoning question, so it's important to understand the pattern of reasoning in the given argument before proceeding to evaluate the answer choices. In this argument, a statement is given with two contradicting components- in this case, that is the date (1989) and the artist (Louis Armstrong). Then, one of these components is accepted ("the trumpeter was definitely Louis Armstrong"), and, by process of elimination, the other component is rejected ("the announcer must have gotten the date of the recording wrong"). With this pattern in mind, we look to the answer choices.
Answer choice C is correct because it displays the same pattern with different components. First, a statement with two contradicting components is made. The components in this case are as follows: (1) Frida Kahlo (a 20th century Mexican artist) painted the work as is labeled, and (2) the painting is of a 17th century Japanese landscape as it appears. Answer choice C goes on to confirm one of these components ("since it is what it appears to be"), and thereby reject the other ("the label is wrong").
Answer choice B displays a different pattern of reasoning and is therefore incorrect. It states that the painting titled "La Toilette" is actually Morisot's La Toilette only if it can be in two places at once. It then rejects the idea that a painting can exist in two places at the same time (note how this differs from the pattern in the passage and in answer choice C, which first accept a component), and then rejects the idea that the painting is actually Morisot's La Toilette.
Let me know if you need any more clarification. Hope this helps!
