(A) presents a whole (a store) and discusses a single one of its parts (higher-priced goods). It then brings up a decision to limit the use of this part. The stimulus, however, discusses the functioning of a whole in terms of all its parts, so (A) doesn’t match.

(B) presents a whole (an animal’s body) and its parts (the body’s organs). It then tells us that harm from a specific damaged part can be offset. The stimulus, however, makes no mention of a damaged part, and instead concludes that the design of the whole and its parts is intentional, so (B) doesn’t match.

(C) presents a set (the car models produced by a certain manufacturer), and tells us that the popularity of some members of the set reduces the demand for other members of the set. The stimulus, however, describes the functioning of a whole in terms of its parts, so (C) doesn’t match.

(D) presents a whole (an athlete’s body) and its parts (an athlete’s individual body parts). It then tells us that a focus on one of these parts can hurt the other parts. The stimulus, however, tells us that the design of the whole and its parts is intentional, so (D) doesn’t match.

(E) discusses the functioning of a whole (a car) in terms of its parts (the car’s individual parts). It then tells us that, because there is no advantage to one of these parts outlasting the whole, this is intentional (a design choice by engineers).