Critical Reasoning

During the past year, Pro-Tect Insurance Company's total payouts on car-theft claims were larger than the company can afford to sustain. Pro-Tect cannot reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries, so cannot protect itself against continued large payouts that way. Therefore, Pro-Tect has decided to offer a discount to holders of car-theft policies whose cars have antitheft devices. Many policyholders will respond to the discount by installing antitheft devices, since the amount of the discount will within two years typically more than cover the cost of installation. Thus, because cars with antitheft devices are rarely stolen, Pro-Tect's plan is likely to reduce its annual payouts.
In the argument above, the two portions in boldface play which of the following roles?
A. The first rules out a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second presents the strategy that was adopted instead and whose effectiveness the argument assesses.
B. The first is a judgment made in support of a certain conclusion; the second is that conclusion.
C. The first has been used as a consideration to support adopting a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second reports a decision to adopt an alternative strategy.
D. The first provides evidence in favor of adopting a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second reports a decision to pursue an alternative goal.
E. The first is a consideration offered against adopting a certain strategy for achieving a goal; the second is the main conclusion that the argument is seeking to establish.

IMO A
The goal here is to minimize large payouts. The first strategy of reducing the number of policies is not feasible. The second bold face offers an alternative strategy to reduce the large payouts by offering discounts to holders who have anti-theft devices

+1 for A

Reasons to eliminate B n C??

I am confused between A and C. But I chose C. what is OA?

C-> The first has been used as a consideration to support adopting a certain strategy for achieving a goal...

I think the first statement is used to show that why a particular strategy cannot be used and not to support adopting a certain strategy.. This is what the argument says..
Pro-Tect cannot reduce the number of car-theft policies it carries, so cannot protect itself against continued large payouts that way.
So, the first statement gives a reason for NOT adopting a particular strategy and both these combined statements forced Pro-text to decide on the alternative strategy..
So, that's why I guess C is wrong...

OA is A

+1 for A

user123321

why it wouldn't be D?

What is the official answer?

Need expert help here.

Looks like A and C are the contenders here.

I think (A) may not be the correct answer.

Answer choice (A) correctly describes the first boldfaced sentence. However,it does not correctly describe the second boldfaced sentence. I think the narration of second boldfaced sentence in choice A is incorrect because it says that the strategy "WAS ADOPTED INSTEAD". passage is talking about "a PLAN to implement such a strategy, but this strategy has not been adopted yet".

I don't understand the first half of the choice (C).
The description of the second boldfaced sentence seems correct in choice C. However,the narration of the first boldfaced sentence doesn't seem right.

Please clarify.

Very good explanations on this one from sl750, adi800, and edirik and bouyant!

I did some research here. Warning! There are different versions of this question floating around, so be sure to read the answer choices for this particular version.

The source of this question is crack verbal.

OA is A.

It is fairly straightforward to see that the first portion rules out a given strategy. It states that pro-tect cannot adopt the strategy of reducing the number of car-theft policies.

This rules out choice B, C, and D. E is still possible since E states that it is "a consideration against adopting a certain strategy. However, choice E is certainly wrong on the second portion. This is not the main conclusion but is a different strategy that the argument then discusses.

Thanks David and Mike for the explanation!

I am still not clear why does choice A say that "the second presents a strategy that WAS ADOPTED instead"..
Doesn't the passage say that "Pro-Tect has a Plan to do so and later discuss the possible advantages of this strategy after it will be adopted" ?

Well explained, Mike !

It is clear now.

Thanks!