Analysis of passage
1. United Energy recently invested in a series of large windmills which are able to produce renewable energy with minimal negative effect to the environment.
2. United Energy has not drilled oil wells in the same area, even though greater revenues and profits could be generated from oil wells.
3. Environmentalist’s conclusion: By foregoing this drilling, United Energy has established that it places environmental impact over financial returns.
4. Author’s conclusion: United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals as oil wells are not profitable in long term in the area.Pre thinking:
Author’s conclusion (which is also conclusion of the argument) : United Energy may be acting in a manner consistent with its financial goals.
Author’s support to his conclusion: To support his conclusion author is citing recent patterns of increasing annual hurricane activity which some experts believe will affect the long-term viability and profitability of oil wells in the area.
Environmentalist conclusion: United Energy places environmental impact over financial returns
Environmentalist support to his conclusion: Environmentalist is supporting his conclusion by citing the fact that united energy has opted for windmills instead of drilling oil wells although greater revenues and profits could be generated from oil wells.
So the first bold is definitely not conclusion of the argument and nor is it supporting the conclusion of the argument. It is actually supporting the environmentalist conclusion as stated in pre thinking above. The second bold face is the environmentalist conclusion.
Hence C is the answer
Note that it is important to segregate between Author's and Environmentalist conclusion in this question and once that is done it becomes easier to relate between conclusion and supporting reasons.
Hope this Helps.
The Kudo please