IMO ABunuel The Question stem is missing...
Companies that innovate faster generally have higher profits and the higher the number of highly innovative projects, also called moon shots, a company has, the higher it is valued in the stock market.
Such valuation may not yield proportionate profits as historically companies that focus on three or fewer moon shots execute much better and consequently deliver higher profits than companies that have five or more moon shot projects.
The question is Boldface CR asking what role the 'bold' statements play..
A. The first is a principle that leads to a certain course of action. The second is the position that calls into question the course of action.
Sounds ok.. The first one indeed tells how innovating faster can lead to higher valuation (or at least acts as a principal for the following sentence). The second one also calls into question this by saying why is this not the case. Keep this and eliminate rest if possibleB. The first is a position that is disputed in the argument; the second is the alternate position that the argument recommends.
Incorrect. The first position is not disputed in the argument as a whole... The fact that stock valuations are high is what is disputed.C. The first provides evidence in support of the main conclusion of the argument. The second is that conclusion.
Incorrect. First does not provide evidence to any conclusion given that sentence itself is a conclusion/sub-conclusion.
D. The first describes a circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second gives the explanation that the argument seeks to establish.
Incorrect. Both sentences are contradictory and do not seek to explain the same thing.
E. The first describes a circumstance that the argument as a whole seeks to explain; the second provides evidence in support of an explanation that the argument seeks to establish
Incorrect. Same as D.