B for me.

But first, the conclusion can be identified as - "Media has become a powerful tool of manipulating people’s minds and shaping opinions"

A: the first describes a phenomenon supporting the author’s main conclusion; the second is this conclusion
> WRONG. The second bolded part does not state the conclusion.

B: the first is an example cited in support of a certain position; the second is a relevant addition to this position
> CORRECT. The first bolded part is an example. The second bolded part adds information to the author's position that is stated in the conclusion

C: the first describes a phenomenon illustrating the author’s main point; the second is offered as an explanation of this phenomenon
> WRONG. The second bolded part talks about how people form opinions based on what they learn from the media, and it does not provide an explanation of the phenomenon.

D: the first states the author’s main idea while the second develops this idea
> WRONG. The first bolded part gives an example. It is the conclusion that states the author's main idea.

E: the first is a fact counting against the argument’s main conclusion; the second is the evidence supporting this conclusion
> WRONG. The first bolded part is a fact alright, but it supports the argument's main conclusion, and does not contradict it.

I pick C

First going by the definition of phenomenon, it means fact perceived by the senses. So indeed, the first boldface unusual deaths, such as deaths resulting from strokes of lightning, are considered much more frequent than they actually occur is used to explain the author's main point.

Of course, the author's main point is that "Media has become a powerful tool of manipulating people’s minds and shaping opinions"

so it makes sense to say the second boldface Many find it hard to believe this data because frequent deaths are not out of the ordinary and are not the subject of extensive media coverage. explains why unusual deaths are considered much more frequen than they actully occur.

C for me too....