Official Explanation
The technology analyst's glowing prediction about the success of this website hinges on a Supply & Demand argument: what they offer is unique (i.e. in short supply) and the demand is high. Large demand and small supply means big profits folks on the supply side. The Law of Supply & Demand is quite solid, so we want to weaken this argument, we really have to call into question whether the supply is really so small.
(A) is the credited response because it does exactly that. If nationally syndicated TV show provides much the same service, then what the Cyberepicuria website offers is no longer unique. Supply increases, so price drops. This weakens the argument.
(B) reaffirms the high demand, so this would strengthen the argument.
(C) & (D) & (E) all deal with how difficult the problem would be to solve, but we are told: Cyberepicuria already had a programming breakthrough. If they already can model flavors with their program, they have already taken all three of these into account.
FAQ: Why is A correct, if it's talking about a TV show, not a website?A: Here is a general summary of the analyst's argument: "investors are likely to triple their money because Cyberepicuria is the only website offering this service." This means that Cyberepicuria is offering a one-of-a-kind service that can't be found elsewhere. The competitive advantage here is that no other company has a similar product-- not that it is a personalized taste experience for each individual.
Imagine if there were a lot of services offering the same thing. Then Cyberepicuria's new program wouldn't be anything special, and therefore wouldn't be very valuable (you could go anywhere else and find the same thing). It's precisely because their product is so unique that they can make a profit from it. This follows the law of supply and demand: people who sell things that are rare, unique, or difficult to find can set a high price for their goods.
What would weaken the argument in this passage is if we could prove that Cyberepicuria's program is in fact not one-of-a-kind. If we could show that someone else is offering a similar product, we effectively strip Cyberepicuria of its uniqueness, so its price would drop.
That's why Choice A works so well: it says that there exists a national TV show that provides virtually the same service to millions of viewers. Even though Choice A is talking about a TV show, the comparison is between the service that is offered to customers. Users of Cyberepicuria and viewers of the TV show are getting the same experience, so that's why they are comparable.