How will the right answer fit in terms of support and conclusion?

Only the right answer will use the same kind of support and the same kind of conclusion as the passage, and thus have the same flaw.

Highlight the main conclusion in the passage, if there is one:

this film’s financial backers will not recoup their investment

[SUPPORT]. [SUPPORT]. [SUPPORT], so [CONCLUSION].

Between the if-then rules given as support, and the matter-of-fact conclusion that leaves no room for exceptions, you should recognize that this passage is probably mixing up sufficient and necessary conditions. The right answer will also have to have an if-then chain with three parts, then cite a fact that the first part isn’t happening, then conclude that the third part isn’t happening.

Map the wording of the answers to the wording of the passage:

(A) …This film did not do well at the box office…

Nope, this is saying the last link in the chain didn’t happen, but the passage says it’s the first link in that didn’t happen.

(B) …so it will not have a long run at theaters.

This all maps. We see the three parts: if A, then B, and if B, then C. We see the fact that the first part isn’t happening, and then the conclusion that the last part isn’t happening.

(C) …This film did well on video…

That doesn’t map. The fact in the passage says the first link in the chain isn’t happening, but this says the last link in the chain is happening. Not “similar” at all.

(D) …This star was not nominated…

This fact says the second link in the chain didn’t happen, which doesn’t match the passage saying it was the first link in the chain that didn’t happen.

(E) …This film has a big budget…

This says the condition in the if-then rule is happening, but the passage said it wasn’t. Not a match.

(B) is the correct answer.

Common pattern/s in this question: Anytime you see if-then rules (a/k/a sufficient and necessary conditions) on a flaw question, you can bet the author will mix up a sufficient and necessary condition.