My reasoning:
Conclusion is the Rubco (tire suplier company) executives claim:
winning the bid will actually make a profit for the company (rubco).(A) In any Maxilux model, the spare tire is exactly the same make and model as the tires that are mounted on the wheels.
Out of context(B) Rubco holds exclusive contracts to supply Maxilux with the tires for a number of other models made by Maxilux.
This one I maintain for a couple of seconds, because if theres another source of income (i mean other contracts that assure sales) maybe Rubco will be profitable. But we dont know the costs of these exclusive contracts, and even more, our focus is to support that THE BID will make profit, not exclusive contracts.(C) The production facilities for the Max 100 and those for the tires to be supplied by Rubco are located very near each other.
Again, this one was in my mind for a couple of seconds.....But comparing to D, the choices want to show maybe that the logistc costs are low? and with this pretend to dimish the analyst opinion? mmmm.... but my goal is to JUSTIFY RUBCO EXECUTIVES...mmmm.. and even more, this is one cost, what about other costs or maybe the representation of this cost over the total costs on tires?.(D) When people who have purchased a carefully designed luxury automobile need to replace a worn part of it, they almost invariably replace it with a part of exactly the same make and type.
Ok it makes sense, the tire design is an special one, so any replace will increase Rubco production so sales, and even more this is like a derived source of income from THE BID (needs to the existance of the winning bid to exists), comparing to D this justifies better.(E) When Maxilux awarded the tire contract to Rubco, the only criterion on which Rubco's bid was clearly ahead of its competitors' bids was price.
Kind of weaken, if Maxilux only accept Rubco proposal because of the price (very low), this some how implies that Rubco sales will be low and maybe roughly enough to cover the production & other costs involved.