Read carefully. Of course both have an impact on the other. The whole question is which is MORE LIKELY to have an impact (negative or positive) on the other.

I did read carefully, but if you literally just want to know which is more likely, then ‘neither has a big effect’ should not be an option either, because even if both effects were small, one would still be less small, unless they are exactly equal. And if they can be exactly equal, the effects could be equal and small which that option seems to imply could be roughly the case, or equal and large which my proposed option would imply could be roughly the case. There is no reason to say the difference can only be negligible if both effects are small, two large effects can have negligible differences too.

What I would say is

Passing yardage = pass throwing ability x pass catching ability. Passing touchdowns = pass throwing ability into the endzone x pass catching ability in the endzone. Receivers and qbs are both judged strongly by yardage and touchdowns, and both require a thrower and catcher to perform for either to gain the stat. In this case the effects are exactly equal, a x b = c, you can’t say a or b affects c more, they both affect c a lot, but the same as eachother.

If we want to get down to meaningless technicalities, the qb may affect the receivers more than the receivers affect the qb because the receivers get 99.5% of their passes from the qb, all except trick plays. But the qb can throw to the running backs too, so the receivers and TE can only control the outcome of like 80% of his passes, but they do greatly affect the ability to spread out the defense for the other 20%, so perhaps the receivers affect the qb about 90% as much as the qb affects the receivers. But if we compare the ability of the qb to the ability of all eligible receivers including running backs, i think they affect eachother totally and equally, if one fails they both fail, and you need to study film to find the weak link because the result is the same either way, less passing offense. I dont think a great qb can make due with horrible receivers or great receivers can make due with a horrible qb, the best you can get combining great and horrible is mediocre overall results.

With the way the question is worded It’s hard to answer with one of the options. Teams have won and lost with great and subpar talent at all positions. Since most plays theoretically start with the QB getting the ball it seems logical to say he is the most important in the dynamic. Yet look back at Brees and his stats. Obviously he was a once in a lifetime talent when it comes to accuracy, but he was super accurate in percentage completion when he threw to Michael Thomas. much higher than he was to others receivers. This shows it’s a two-way street.

Since a QB handles the ball most every offensive play I’d say the QB is more impactful to a team.

Of course QB's more impactful to the team, but more impactful to the success, good or bad, to the WR's, than the WR's are impactful to the success of the QB, good or bad? That is the crux of the question.