This is a Methods of Reasoning question. There is no need to negate the answer choice. You are thinking about the technique for Strengthen with Necessary Premise question.
We are being asked how the argument proceeds.
The conclusion of the argument is: "under the Factory Safety Act, a factory that manufactures automobiles would not be able to postpone its safety inspections."
Why? According to the Act, a company may operate an automobile factory only if that factory is registered as a class B factory. The Act also explains that no factory can be class B without punctual inspections.
SO, as you can see, the argument describes two parts of the Act that explain why the factory that manufactures automobiles would not be able to postpone its safety inspections, which is exactly what answer choice (A) states: "pointing out how two provisions of the proposed Factory Safety Act jointly entail the unacceptability of a certain state of affairs."
Hope that was helpful! Please let us know if you have any other questions.
