Explanation

Reading the question: The opinion is the last clause: "white-labelling is advantageous for both parties." We might notice that "advantageous" hasn't been mentioned earlier. When a term appears for the first time in the conclusion of an argument, try term matching.



The strained connection is that the revenue and free product are necessarily advantageous. This would fail to be true, for example, if there is something else needed for advantageousness that is missing, or if there is some overriding disadvantage. That's our filter.

Applying the filter: (A) is a strengthener, so it's out. Choice (B) points out a disadvantage of the arrangement, so it's in. (C) provides a comparative elaboration that is immaterial to establishing advantage. Out. (D) provides a condition that must be met by one party to capture the advantage, but it doesn't deny that there is an advantage. Choice (D) is out. (E) is more promising: it points out an potential inability of the seller to grasp the advantage. But it doesn't go far enough because it ends up claiming that the seller only can't sell the thing as well as the creator. That could be true and the arrangement could still be tremendously beneficial for the seller. So (E) is out.

Logical proof: if (B) is true, we have an overlooked and potentially overriding problem. Moreover, it's a quality perception issue, and part of the argument was specifically that there is a good brand perception. We can try the negation test. If (B) is false, then we have eliminated a concern, strengthening the argument. We have a disadvantage that the argument failed to point out. The correct answer is (B).