This is a weaken question. The goal of the plan is to increase revenues; the marketing strategists believe this will happen by closing the flagship store and focusing on smaller satellite stores. The underlying assumption is that the high rent of the flagship store (and, perhaps, other costs associated with maintaining the location) is not worth the resulting revenues. Consider each choice in turn:

(A) This choice suggests that the satellite stores are capable of doing everything the flagship store can do, so it doesn't cast doubt on the plan.
(B) There's no apparent distinction between the flagship stores and the satellite stores here; there's nothing directly relevant to revenues.
(C) This choice is also not directly relevant. It suggests there is some connection between opening flagship stores and opening satellite stores, but it's not clear what that has to do with revenue.
(D) This would seem to strengthen the plan, if anything; the satellite stores are more consistent than the flagship. However, it still isn't directly relevant: Consistency doesn't necessarily translate into higher revenues.
(E) This is correct. It shows that the revenues of the satellite stores are dependent on the results of the revenues of the flagship store. If the flagship store were closed, the revenues of the satellite stores would likely be affected.