This is a parallel reasoning question; we have to find an answer choice that matches the logical structure of the stimulus. For these questions we have to essentially "match" the logic of the stimulus with that of the answer choice and pay close attention to modifiers that may affect the reasoning.
The stim is structured as follows:
If you don't excel in A and B then it's likely that you won't be C. Yet many C excel in either A or B and not necessarily both. Therefore, you don't need to excel in both A and B to be C.
A) matches the logic in the stim
It says that if you don't excel in A and B then it's likely you won't be C [It doesn't directly say this, but you can make the assumption that if you're "average" in something then that means you don't excel in it]. Yet, there have been C who have excelled in either A or B but not both, so you don't need A and B to be C. We have a match!
B) This is off for many reasons. Premises are not logically equivalent to that of the stimulus. We can eliminate this one confidently.
C) Take a look at the conclusion. Does it conclude that you can do C with only excelling in either A or B? Nope. It says the opposite -- if you excel at something then you will win. This is too strong and doesn't match the conclusion of the stimulus which says that you DON'T need to excel in both things to get C.
D) Apples that are the "best" need not be... we have a shift from being suitable to baking to being the best; this shift isn't warranted given there was no such shift in the stimulus.
E) Not even close!