【Helr方法讨论】OG12里的一道题完全没有头绪啊！求讨论！！

yyjfantasy

Delta Products Inc. has recently switched at least partly from older technologies using fossil fuels to new technologies powered by electricity. The question has been raised whether it can be concluded that for a given level of output Delta’s operation now causes less fossil fuel to be consumed than it did formerly. The answer, clearly, is yes, since the amount of fossil fuel used to generate the electricity needed to power the new technologies is less than the amount needed to power the older technologies, provided level of output is held constant.
In the argument given, the two boldfaced portions play which of the following roles?
(A) The first identifies the content of the conclusion of the argument; the second provides support for that conclusion.
(B) The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second identifies the content of that conclusion.
(C) The first states the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
(D) The first provides support for the conclusion of the argument; the second calls that conclusion into question.
(E) Each provides support for the conclusion of the argument.

也是T-4-Q32的题目，链接http://forum.chasedream.com/thread-455328-1-1.html，首先是content还是context就有争议，难道OG写错了？还有这个题目读起来就挺别扭，中间还来个设问，起先还误以为这个“yes"就是结论。。然后google了一堆，众说纷纭，突然想起最近学习的helr老师方法，可是不知道这样的逻辑链归在哪一类啊。。

我的想法是题干先是提出一个事实，然后找证据对这个事实进行证明。难道是果因？。。可是又没有明显的因果关系，又或者是演绎？我一直觉得归为这类的题目就可以随便想怎么推理就怎么推理了。。。。
嗷嗷嗷，，求救。。