Critics of Federal Reserve argue that hyperinflation is evident

A. The first is the prediction that the argument on the whole supports; the second is a fact that will be true.
B. The first is the position that the argument opposes; the second is the evidence provided to refute that position.
C. The first is an evidence used to oppose a position; the second is that position.
D. The first is the prediction that the argument on the whole opposes; the second is another prediction that the argument believes will come true.
E. The first is the position that the argument supports; the second is evidence cited to oppose that position.

I'll try to explain what I thought.
I tried to identify the "Claim" and the "Evidence"

We need to see that "hyperinflation is evident" is a Claim, or a "position". It is NOT a prediction because of the word "argues".
Then A, and D are out => "prediction"

The Evidence is neither in the first bold part nor in the second. The Evidence is after the word "because".
Then C is out => Out of scope of the bold part

Then we can hesitate between B and E

BUT, in E, the arguments does not "Support" in the second part which is "cannot be more different". Thus, it opposes this point of view.
Then B is out => "Cannot be"

Hence, B seems more "logical".

Is this a clear way of reasoning ?