It seems to me more of a question of text interpretation. The fact is that by elimination the other 4 answers are much worse, they speak of things that affect the result.
The correct answer talks about renegotiation, it just does not say that it is usually part of the development team when it understands that the scope is not adequate and is discovering throughout the sprint . The text of the site says that the owner of the project should not change the scope on his / her initiative by changing what was foreseen in the sprint , that is, he can not put new requirements that affect the development of that < in> sprint under penalty of not being able to fulfill it.
In practice this negatively affects development, I will not go into detail to avoid controversy, but imagine a change of plans can not interfere in development and have to continue doing something that later will have to be redone to meet the bureaucracy. And there are people who say that the methodology exists to reduce bureaucracy.
The question option phrase was probably taken from page 9 of a guide of Scrum .
I think the Brazilian site is at least confusing in what it says.
