The question is:
Which statement is the same as asserting a square matrix $Z\in\mathbb{R}^{(n,n)}$ is invertible.
- That the columns of $Z$ span $\mathbb{R}^n$.
- That $Z$ has no eigenvectors.
- That $Z$ has no eigenvectors of eigenvalue $0$.
- $\mathrm{ker}Z = \{\mathbf0\}$
D is true from the rank-nullity theorem and properties of linear maps. C is true since $0$ as an eigenvalue is equivalent to noninvertible. B is false by extension of C
I am unsure of A.
You're right about your assertions. Let me just give some notes on them as well:
For (b), you might think about the identity, certainly invertible but with every vector an eigenvector of $1$(besides $\mathbf0$ as the null-vector never is an eigenvector).
For (c), as you rightly remarked, you have that for a matrix $Z$, $0$ is an eigenvalue of $Z$ iff $p_Z(0)=0$ iff $\det(Z-0E_n)=0$ iff $\det(Z)=0$ iff $Z$ is singular, i.e. not invertible.
For (d), the rank-nullity theorem seems to be the best way to go.
Now for (a), note that for $Z=(z_1,\dots,z_n)$ being the column representation of $Z$, we have that if $z_1,\dots,z_n$ span $\mathbb{R}^n$, then f.a $v\in\mathbb{R}^n$, there exists $x_1,\dots,x_n\in\mathbb{R}$ s.t. $\sum_{i=1}^nx_iz_i=v$. Thus, using matrix multiplication, for every $v\in\mathbb{R}^n$, there exists an $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$ s.t. $Zx=v$, as $Zx=\sum_{i=1}^nx_iz_i$ for $x=(x_1,\dots,x_n)$.
Thus, the linear map $\phi_Z(x)=Zx$ for $x\in\mathbb{R}^n$ is surjective. Now, by the rank-nullity theorem, a linear map between two spaces with the same dimension (as here $\mathbb{R}^n$) is surjective iff it is injective iff it is bijective. Note that this only holds in finite dimensions. Thus $\phi_Z$ is bijective and thus $Z$ is invertible.
To round this off, in your case of the finite dimensional $\mathbb{R}^n$ you have $Z$ is invertible iff the columns of $Z$ span $\mathbb{R}^n$ iff the columns of $Z$ are linearly independent. The last of which would correspond by a similar argument as above to injectivity(check this yourself) and thus we'd apply the argument again that this implies bijectivity rightout.