This one really ought to be shut down. If you compare this to the original official question (of which this is a very shaky rewrite), you'll see that the OA is indeed C. However, the way the question has been rewritten makes C incorrect. As written, it would seem to be trying to weaken, rather than strengthen, the argument, but it doesn't even weaken successfully. The use of "some" makes it unclear how the baseline rate of bankruptcy relates to the rate when SaveAll moves in.
As for E, it has zero relevance to the argument. We don't care whether SaveAll operates at a loss. We care whether it operates long enough to drive other businesses to bankruptcy. Although we don't need to lean on real life very much to do CR, I'm sure we all know of major businesses that have succeeded by operating at a loss until they were the last player standing.
Please don't try to learn from this question. It's like buying a poor knock-off a brand-name product, when they are both available for the same (zero) price!