The end of an action is the intended outcome of the action and not a mere by-product of the action, and the end's val...

Hello, I am confused on how any of these answer choices are valid in describing the main point of this article. Both the correct answer C and the answer I chose E seem to connect similar points neither of which are what I would consider the Main Idea. The incorrect option E explains "Nothing can justify the intended outcome of an action except the value of that action's actual outcomes" which was wrong on the bases that it was " Another tricky answer, but this one connects intended and actual outcomes, not means and ends." However, Would answer option C, "One can justify an action only by appeal to the value of its intended outcome" not also appeal to its intended outcomes and not its end outcome? I guess I am confused about how the verbiage "intended outcome" does better to connect means and ends than "actual outcomes." I at first struggled with the incorrect "actual outcomes" too. The plurality of the outcomes could be applied to more than the end outcome value which was the focus of this passage. However, when comparing that to "intended outcomes" the answer choices make even less sense. The intended outcome might not even be the end value of the means. I reread a few times to digest the first sentence "The end of an action is the intended outcome of the action and not a mere by-product of the action" which clearly explains that, if taken as true, all intended actions are end actions. So, I guess I'm kind of explaining to myself why C is right, but why is E wrong? Is it because the "actual outcomes" could refer to those outcomes that are only "mere by-products" of the action and cannot be used for valuing the means?