The price of vehicles that do not meet the energy

____________________________

In order to solve bold face type of questions it is useful to be familiar with the common characteristics which can help to identify the role of the statement.

Let's take a look at the first bold face statement:

The price of vehicles that do not meet the energy efficiency standards recommended by the federal government should include a surcharge fee of 10% of the vehicle's suggested retail price

The recommendation given by the author of an argument is a very commonly used way in which a conclusion can be stated. Taking this into consideration we can boldly cross out options D and E, options that don't reflect this idea.

Let's go forward and analyze the second statement:

some regulations are necessary for the greater good even if they are inconvenient to some.

Doesn't this statement remind you tons of "smart" statements people use to post on their social networks accounts?! It is kind of common knowledge, principle that is very much well dicsussed, and, in our case, the one which supports the conclusion.

Answer B gives us exactly what we are looking for.

Even though we could be pretty sure about B, let's give A and C a chance.

A. Definitely NO. The second bold face statement doesn't restate any piece of evidence we have in this passage.
C. This is a trap. The second bold face statement is too general to be a conclusion. Moreover, the the second statement rather supports the first statement than is supported by it. Make a quick check. Try mentally to delete one of these two statements and you will see, that the argument loses it's initial meaning without the first statement and doesn't lose that much if we cross out the second. This means that the first statement is the main conclusion supported by the general principle reflected in the second one.

Answer B.