Both our selected options need to justify an opposite choice: one should be in favour of a guest, another for the troupe actor. The benefit of a 'local' acor can be proven historically:
a strategy that has helped them put on some of their most successful shows. As for the invited actor, we don't have any specific information added about it in the argument.
Let's look at the answer options:
- Any actor would be eager to play a lead role at a festival this prestigious.
This one is neither here nor there and doesn't help with productivity and quality.
- An organization should not alter regular practices unless they have failed to produce results.
This option is strong, given we don't really know about the negative historical results - we only know some of the most successful shows were organized like that.
This is the right answer (II).- A theatre troupe should cast actors with the most experience in stage acting in lead roles.
This option is good, but we don't know for sure who has more experience in lead roles, the ringer or some troupe actors, given they've also performed quite a few plays already.
- In casting any role, a theatre troupe must take care not to alienate its members.
A good idea, but we aren't persuaded in the argument that choosing an outsider actor will necessarily alienate anyone.
- Theatre troupes often deliver exceptional performances when they cast professional actors.
A positive possibility if a professional is invited.
Looks like the right answer (I).
Therefore, ringer is supported by option E/5, and torupe cast is supported by the option B/2.