Explanation

Reading the question: we are thinking about switching meter types to save money. The switching costs are "minimal," so basically zero. However, we don't know why the new meters are expected to be less costly; the argument doesn't seem to say that.

Creating a filter: Supposing that a prediction of the correct answer doesn't come to mind, we can simply look for something that is of basic relevance, something that gets to the heart of the question, which meter type costs more on an ongoing basis?

Applying the filter: which answer choices touch on this question? Choice (A) may. Choice (B) does not. Choice (C) does not, especially since we've been told the setup cost is minimal. Choice (D) does not. Choice (E) doesn't address what we were looking for, the ongoing costs of one meter type relative to another. We have been told the costs of switching are "minimal," and that would appear to include bringing in a new crew, training the crew, and so on. So, given the facts, choice (E) is much less substantial than it sounds. Choice (A) is the only contender left.

Logical proof: we can confirm (A) by analysis by extreme cases. In fact, you can usually apply analysis by extreme cases to answer choices that begin with the word "whether." Consider one case: if the new meter type died out much, much faster than the other, it would surely be more expensive over time. We are guaranteed that switchover costs are minimal by the data given, but we are not guaranteed anything about ongoing replacement. On the other hand, in a different case, if the new meter died much, much slower than the old meters, then it would be less expensive over time. Since these two cases yield different answers to the question of minimizing yearly costs, answer choice (A), indeed, states something that is "useful" and indeed important to know in order to answer the question of yearly costs. The correct answer is (A).