I see how it is. I'm just "one of the geeks" to you.
I agree that (C) is pretty weird. On a first pass, none of the answers seemed great to me. You did a great job by switching into POE mode and keeping the best of what was left.
I think we were both hoping to support Fring by hearing something that sounded more like an executive who wanted to pass the buck or find a scapegoat.
We didn't get anything like that.
C) works primarily because it works against Blatt's position, not because it works for Fring's. If Blatt were correct, and executives longed for the valuable advice of consultants, then a consulting firm lowering its prices should have resulted in more business. Executives would have been thinking, "omigosh, I can get their expert advice at a more affordable cost? Sweet!"
Since that didn't happen, since the volume of business went down instead, it suggests that executives were actually attracted to the high price (Fring's position) rather than to the high quality service (Blatt's position).
===other answers===
(A) and (B) are just totally neutral. They don't favor either position.
(D) seems to support Blatt, since the consultants would be making money only if their advice paid off.
(E) is too incomplete to judge. Because they were "marginally profitable at first", are we to think the consultant's advice was good or bad? Hard to say, hence hard to determine who, if anyone, this would support.
Hope this helps.