First of all, I don't like the wording of the last sentence
"FMP computers have simpler, more reliable processors, and their average operational span is substantially longer."
More reliable than what?
longer than what?
But as our beloved Ninja likes to say, who cares about our likes and dislikes : )
I caught the logic here:
Managers decided to by A, not B, because A is more reliable than B. Why compare A to old systems? we anyway intend to replace them with A or B
(A) Whether FMP processors’ operational span is significantly longer than that of new models of existing technology.
This is literally what we have deduced in our reasoning, no new information
(B) Whether FMP computers have higher energy efficiency than that of new models of the existing processors.I like it, except the benefits listed in the stem, we have another argument to assert that management’s decision will reduce the company’s maintenance costs
(C) Whether mainframe computer manufacturers still produce and market servers that are based on the older technology as well.
Irrelevant. Gives information about older technology, which we are trying to replace anyway.
(D) Whether the bank's management intends to purchase more mainframe servers next year, in order to expand its capabilities.
Quite tempting. but if we dive deeper we can find that we cant compare costs (incurred by increasing servers) and spared costs by FMPs benefits. It is distinct possible that "costs (incurred by increasing servers)" is higher than "spared costs by FMPs benefits", or vise versa
(E) Whether other banks in its market recently upgraded their computing systems.
Thanks for easy elimination. WEho cares about other banks
IMO
Ans:
B