This answer is unsupported. Stimulus says that the love-of-sport athletes play mainly for the love of their sport. It would be unreasonable to infer that winning is hence unimportant to them.

This answer is unsupported. Confuses a relative comparison for an absolute. We know that the play-to-win athletes have less concentration than the love-of-sport athletes. We cannot infer that the play-to-win athletes possess so little concentration that their vision is inadequate.

This answer is strongly supported. We know the love-of-sport athletes have sharper vision and we know what causes sharper vision: greater concentration on the sport itself. Hence, we can infer that the love-of-sport athletes had concentration on the sport itself.

This answer is unsupported. Stimulus doesn't talk about how many things an athlete can concentrate on at a time. In fact, it's reasonable to interpret concentrating the activity itself to mean concentrating multiple things at once: the goal, teammates, the opposing team, the strategy, etc.

This answer is unsupported. Stimulus doesn't talk about overall performance. It only talks about eyesight, which is presumably one factor in overall performance.