Explanation

Reading the question: this prompt presents a fairly weak argument; the many vulnerabilities are potentially distracting. But we are asked something rather specific: which strategy will maximize profits in the new policy. It looks like we might be able to largely ignore the conclusion of the argument and focus on a critical detail. It's a perfect example of why we should keep an eye on the question stem while digesting the prompt.

Creating a filter: the phrase "most likely" is a case of logical understatement in the argument. We can prove by stronger terms and look for what's critical. That's maximizing profits. Profits are revenues minus costs, so our strategy will maximize profits and/or minimize costs. A fact is that the drivers are elderly and accident-having. They sound expensive to insure, but we can't change that parameter. We can at least hope they have minimal accidents. Let's take that prediction as our filter to the answer choices.

Applying the filter: Our prediction exists in the form of answer choice (B). Choices (C) and (D) argue with the facts: this policy is for elderly drivers. Choice (A) describes an option that will cost more than (B), since Nationside will have to pay out more to cover accidents, so it's only better if we can jack up the revenues in (A) much higher than in (B). But the second sentence of the argument implies that we can't do that. So (A) is objectively inferior to (B) and is out. Choice (E) is similar to (A): if the drivers were rejected by other policies, it's probably because they are more expensive. Or, if that's outside knowledge that we're not supposed to bring to bear on this question, (E) is simply irrelevant. The correct answer is (B).