The core is
PREM:
Pollinated solely by insects --> feature that attracts insects
+
X has a feature that attracts insects
CONC:
so, X is pollinated solely by insects
When we recognize that conditional logic was botched, that's Nec/Suff Flaw, but we still have to stay flexible for other ways the answer choice could be worded.
For instance, the correct answer could have been:
"fails to consider that orchid species that are not exclusively pollinated by insects may also have features that attract insects".
The wording of (D) actually IS Nec/Suff, but I agree it's pretty unusual wording.
If I say a characteristic that is known to be true of one class of things, we would write that as:
Class of things ---> Characteristic
or
Former US President --> Male
Is the characteristic of "Male"-ness unique to that class of former US Presidents? Of course not. I have the characteristic of male-ness, and the highest office to which I rose was President of the School Patrols (i.e. crossing guards).
If a characteristic WERE unique to a class of things, it would be fair to say
Characteristic --> Class of Things.
So D expresses the same reversal of logic we're expecting with a Nec/Suff flaw.