This question really boils down to whether you're allowed to divide by 0 or not. Suppose that you have a sample $X_1,...,X_n$ with $U=\min\{X_1,...,X_n\}=-1$ and $T=\max\{X_1,...,X_n\}=1$. Then we can agree that any $\theta\in[-4,4]$ is an MLE of $\theta$ because the indicator variables in the likelihood is 1 (as opposed to 0). That is, the inequality
$$T-5\le\theta\le U+5$$
holds. Then by the invariance property $\left(\frac 1 \theta\right)_{MLE}=\frac 1 {\theta_{MLE}}$. That is, $\left(\frac 1 \theta\right)_{MLE}\in(-\infty,-\frac 1 4]\cup[\frac 1 4,\infty)$. In particular, $\frac{T+U}{2}=0$ is an MLE of $\theta$, but $\frac{2}{T+U}$ is not an MLE of $\frac 1 \theta$ because it is undefined. However $\left(\frac 1 \theta\right)_{MLE}$ do exist, as previously mentioned being in the interval of anything smaller than -1/4 or greater than 1/4.
It is helpful to determine the difference between maximum likelihood estimators and maximum likelihood estimates. Note that $\frac{T+U}{2}$ is a MLE of $\theta$ that works for all samples - in fact it is the only estimator that works for all samples. By the invariance property of maximum likelihood estimators, we can conclude that $\frac{2}{T+U}$ is a maximum likelihood estimator of $\frac 1 \theta$, even though as in the example in the previous paragraph, its maximum likelihood estimates that it produces may be undefined when U=-T, whilst other MLEstimates exist for 1/theta.
Conclusion
$\frac 2{T+U}$ is a Maximum Likelihood Estimator of $\frac 1 \theta$. Since it does not exist when the denominator is 0, it is also true that it is a MLEstimator of $\frac 1 \theta$ when this happens.
Eliminate:
(B) It is too specific. A MLE of 1/theta only doesn't exist when U=-5 and T=5. 2/(U+T) doesn't work for when U=-T and $U\ne-5$, but MLEs of 1/theta always exist in these cases.