Explanation

Reading the question: The first sentence is a fact and the second provides an opinion. We have another pseudo-syllogistic argument, so we can parse it by term matching:



The kinds of companies and the timing of the actions in question both match up well. The mismatch is in the last row, especially between the verbs "invest" and "generate." Even if it's a fact that they invest in R&D the year after a good year, does that mean that they should generate more innovations the year after a good year? Maybe not; maybe the results are not so accurately timed, and/or occur after a delay. That's our weakener.

Applying the filter: our filter does not show up exactly as expected. But we're looking for yes on the investing and no on the generating, a failure to generate. Choices (A), (C), and (E) all sound negative, but don't necessarily impede the company's ability to generate the innovations. We're left with (B) and (D). (D), if anything, might help generating innovations. Choices (B) could be helpful or harmful, but it's the only one left. And if the "processes" have been "altered," they could be worse. The correct answer is (B).