Let's begin to solve the question by taking a look at the options one after the other.
In Option A - CORRECT. We have a speculative response to the question having critically analysed the whole argument. The laws only said they can't expand the capacity which means they have reached the maximum occupancy rate required or designed by the authority. Consequently, it would be difficult to expand the profit margin.
In Option B - INCORRECT. We have a case of wrong interpretation. In the absence of the rigid land use laws, the hotelier could have built a more attractive and more expensive hotel thereby increasing on its turnover.
In Option C - INCORRECT. Firstly, it's speculative to assume that the personnel who are skilled enough aren't in abundance. In fact, the more the trained personnel the more the pressure on labor costs which would not bring about any increase in profit but burden it.
In Option D - INCORRECT. Here, the comment is at par with the supposed statement meaning by the writer since his duty is to provide a level of maximum satisfaction to his customers which they'd in turn pay for. It is noteworthy to state that it is not entirely correct to assume that they have provided the desired luxury consumers wants.
From the last solution in Option E - INCORRECT the response is inconsistent with the writer's opinion or stance because serving foreigners should bring more profits and not the other way round.