The first sentence presents other people's view: banking industry visionaries predict a future where customers can handle all their financial business from home via computers or phones. The author doesn't endorse or argue for this prediction. She simply reports what the visionaries foresee.

The word "But" signals the author's own take. She pushes back on the rosy framing by concluding that this future may benefit banks more than their customers. In other words, the visionaries are painting this as great for everyone, but the author thinks the banks are the ones who really come out ahead.

Why does the author believe this? Because as banks eliminate branch offices and customer-service employees, customers will have to act as their own tellers and pay more transaction fees. So from the customer's perspective, this "paradise" means doing more work and paying more money. That's the author's evidence for why this future is better for banks than for customers.

The argument structure:

• Context: Banking visionaries foresee customers doing all their banking from home by computer or phone.
• Conclusion: This future may be more of a paradise for banks than for customers.
• Premise: Banks will eliminate branches and staff, forcing customers to serve as their own tellers and pay more fees.

The conclusion is the author's comparative assessment: the envisioned future benefits banks more than customers. We should look for an answer that captures this comparison. Watch out for answers that state only one side of the comparison (e.g., that banks would benefit) without capturing the relative claim that banks benefit more than customers.