This matches our prediction and allows the conclusion to be validly drawn. If (A) is true, then Checker’s decision and the surrounding circumstances would trigger (A)’s sufficient condition (”Any company...”) and allow us to conclude that their only motive was to hurt Marty’s.

Given the stimulus, the only thing we can confirm from (B) is its necessary condition (”...refuse to accept them even when...”), and confirming a necessary condition does not allow us to validly infer anything.

(C) only tells us that this has happened. We do not know that the company specified is Checkers.

(D) weakens the argument. This is giving alternative motive, i.e. they wanted to avoid helping Marty’s, which is different than actively trying to hurt them.

Additionally, we cannot trigger the sufficient condition here (”Any company...”), because Checkers does not qualify.

(E) can support a conclusion that a refusal is motivated by a desire to satisfy customers, or, through contrapositive, that accepting coupons enables a company to satisfy customers. We need to conclude that a company’s motive in refusal is solely to hurt another company.