In corporate purchasing, competitive scrutiny is typically limited to suppliers of items that are directly related to end products. With “indirect” purchases
(such as computers, advertising, and legal services), which are not directly related to production, corporations often favor “supplier partnerships”
(arrangements in which the purchaser forgoes the right to pursue alternative suppliers), which can inappropriately shelter suppliers from rigorous
competitive scrutiny that might afford the purchaser economic leverage. There are two independent variables—availability of alternatives and ease of
changing suppliers—that companies should use to evaluate the feasibility of subjecting suppliers of indirect purchases to competitive scrutiny. This can
create four possible situations. In Type 1 situations, there are many alternatives and change is relatively easy. Open pursuit of alternatives—by frequent competitive bidding, if possible—will likely yield the best results. In Type 2 situations, where there are many alternatives but change is difficult—as for providers of employee health-care benefits—it is important to continuously test the market and use the results to secure concessions from existing suppliers. Alternatives
provide a credible threat to suppliers, even if the ability to switch is constrained. In Type 3 situations, there are few alternatives, but the ability to switch
without difficulty creates a threat that companies can use to negotiate concessions from existing suppliers. In Type 4 situations, where there are few alternatives
and change is difficult, partnerships may be unavoidable.


Which of the following best describes the relation of the second paragraph to the first?

A. The second paragraph offers proof of an assertion made in the first paragraph.
B. The second paragraph provides an explanation for the occurrence of a situation described in the first paragraph.
C. The second paragraph discusses the application of a strategy proposed in the first paragraph.
D. The second paragraph examines the scope of a problem presented in the first paragraph.
E. The second paragraph discusses the contradictions inherent in a relationship described in the first paragraph.

I marker the answer , whereas the right is
_________________

You want something, go get it . Period !

I understand the difference, there is a very subtle shift of meaning between the two choices.

Even if we stick close to the scope of passage, it's really hard to differentiate.

anyone any thoughts on this ?
_________________

You want something, go get it . Period !