Understanding the argument -
A product that represents a clear technological advance over competing products can generally command a high price. Fact
Surprisingly, perhaps, the strategy to maximize overall profits from a new product is to charge less than the maximum price the market will bear. Main conclusion
Many companies charge the maximum possible price for such a product, an Alternate strategy other than the strategy recommended by the author.
because they want to make as much profit as they can and technological advances tend to be quickly surpassed. Support for the strategy other than the strategy recommended by the author
The drawback is that large profits on the new product give competitors an incentive to quickly develop a product to match the rival product's capabilities. - a drawback of the alternate strategy other than the strategy recommended by the author.
Option Elimination -
(A) The first is the position that the argument advocates (ok. Main conclusion); the second presents grounds for rejecting an alternate position. (ok. A drawback of the alternate strategy other than the strategy recommended by the author)
(B) The first is the position that the argument advocates;(ok) the second is an alternative position that the argument rejects. (No, it's not an alternative position. It's a premise that rejects the alternate strategy other than the strategy recommended by the author)
(C) The first presents a strategy for achieving a certain goal (the goal is to maximize the profits. We can say it's okay as it also shares a plan to reach that goal), the second presents a drawback to that strategy. (No. It goes in the same direction as BF1 - the author's strategy or supports the BF1)
(D) The first presents a strategy for achieving a certain goal,(the goal is to maximize the profits. We can say it's okay as it also shares a plan to reach that goal) the second presents grounds for preferring a different goal. (No. It goes in the same direction as BF1 - aligned with the same goal)
(E) The first presents a strategy that, according to the argument, is ineffective (No. according to the argument, it's effective); the second presents a way of improving the effectiveness of that strategy. (No. For the BF1 is effective, and the Bf2 just supports that strategy)