C for me, since the magazine might loose from the revenues from the advertisers of other cookware manufacturers.

IMO C too.

IMO C too. You can arrive at C by negating the assumptions and see if the argument falls apart.

A. Even if the line is not superior it has no effect on other revenues and the licensing fee is fixed.

B. Irrelevant to the argument.

C. The other revenues which the magazine has are advertisement for other cookware products manufacturers. If they find advertising in Kitchen magazine unattractive because of the name associated with a competing cookware line then the magazine will lose money, hence the argument will have to assume this to keep it intact.

D. Even if new customers are not there, that does not lead the argument to fall apart.

E. Irrelevant.

can please explain what is the problem with B

cheers!

IMO its C.

ssgmatter wrote:can please explain what is the problem with B

cheers!

What if they do ? Such an action would have nothing to do with the conclusion, which is about the licensing fee on the cookware and no other

This would be saying that the following argument:

Alcohol is harmless when consumed in small quantities, according to medical researchers. Therefore, if they are right, I can continue having a beer a day without worrying about shortening my lifespan.

is weak because it assumes that I will not eventually consume drugs in small quantities.