I agree with the activation energy reasoning, I do not agree with the result. I did not try to look thermodynamic properties, but in general the more substituted an allkene, the faster it reacts in an electrophilic reaction. This includes addition of bromine, epoxidation, and addition of HX. If B) reacts faster, then the activation energy barrier must be smaller. That is the essence of my thinking. While B) and D) share the same intermediate, that does not mean their activation energies are the same. If B) is the more stable alkene, then for D) to react faster, the must have very similar activation energies. That would argue the generality I suggested is incorrect.
The difference argument may be applied to cis and trans-2-butene in that cis would be at a higher energy level and one might reasonably argue the activation energies are similar. Therefore, the activation energy barrier must be less for the cis compound. Because I believe this argument is reflexive. If the trans isomer hypothetically reacted faster, you would find that chemists would simply argue the activation energy barrier was lower for the trans isomer.
If I am arguing with a professor, the professor is always right or that is how the exams are graded.
I agree with phenol as having the stronger hydrogen bonds. There is a constant trade between electron and proton availability. The more available the electrons, the less available the protons and the more available the protons, the less available the electrons. Thus amines and HCl do not have strong hydrogen bonds. In between are the strongest hydrogen bonds. They are amides, phenols, carboxylic acids, and HF. I erred.
For the reduction of methyl chloride, I didn't know whether LAH worked or not. I believe it works with benzylic halides. Zn/H(+) will also work with benzylic bromides (chlorides?). In general, dissolving metals will work if at a higher reduction potential, for example magnesium or lithium whether in a protic solvent or not? If not, then add water to the Grignard or methyllithium.