IMO B.

Firs bold statement says, company's management is really poor when it comes to takes decision.
Second bold statement provide evidence for the rejection first statement.

I came to answer using logic. Can someone provide the right approach on how to solve this type of Questions?

The first states the position that the argument as a whole rejects
That's right.
The position that is rejected is the "poor decision-making".
The second part does not support the bad decision-making...

IMO A

himu wrote:An outspoken board member of the Lunch Crunch vegetarian restaurant chain recently declared that the company's management is showing very poor decision-making, citing as evidence the recent decision to open up a third franchise in the same 20-block radius in Seattle before introducing even one restaurant in Chicago. His reliably negative comments often cause ill will on the adventurous Lunch Crunch board, especially in cases like this, where they are clearly without merit. Although it is generally a good idea to enter new markets rather than entering an oversaturated market, in Lunch Crunch's recent decision there was good reason to do the opposite. Its existing franchises in Seattle were regularly enjoying more customers than they could seat, with lines occasionally extending out the door.



Question
In the above argument, the two selections in boldface play which of the following roles?
Choices
A
The first states the position that the argument as a whole rejects; the second provides evidence to undermine support for the position that is rejected.

B
The first states the position that the argument as a whole rejects; the second provides evidence to support the position that is rejected.

C
The first states the position that the argument as a whole rejects; the second gives the final conclusion of the argument.
D
The first provides evidence to support a position that the argument as a whole rejects; the second provides other evidence to counter that evidence.

E
The first provides evidence to support a position that the argument as a whole rejects; the second gives the final conclusion of the argument.

The answer should be A.
Let us examine the argument:

Position 1: The company's management is showing very poor decision-making
Evidence 1: The recent decision to open up a third franchise in the same 20-block radius in Seattle before introducing even one restaurant in Chicago

Position 2: In this particular case, there is good reason to enter an over-saturated market than a new market.
Evidence 2: The company's existing franchises in Seattle were regularly enjoying more customers than they could seat, with lines occasionally extending out the door. i.e. the market is not really saturated - there is demand that the existing franchises are not able to meet.

The argument as a whole rejects Position 1 and supports Position 2, as evident from the use of the phrase 'in Lunch Crunch's recent decision there was good reason to do the opposite.'

Thus, the first boldface is a position and not the evidence - hence, choices D and E are out. Now let's look at the second halves of the remaining answer choices.
The second boldface is evidence to support a position and not a conclusion - hence, option C is also out.

Now let's look at choices A and B.
B says that the second boldface provides evidence that supports the position that is rejected (Position 1). This is wrong. The second boldface is evidence that supports Position 1. Hence, B is also out.

Option A is the correct answer, as it says that the second boldface is evidence that undermines support for Position 1, which is exactly what it does!