Why is E incorrect?

Why is C incorrect?

@djayasinghe and @Shiyi-Zhang, Happy to help. Let's first analyze the argument before looking at the answer choices. The argument says that corporate businesses must adapt to survive and that inefficient companies will become extinct. We're then told that some companies had had to change their corporate philosophy to adapt. From this, the argument concludes that sometimes a business can survive only by becoming a different corporation. That's strange. In the conclusion we're told about 'becoming a different corporation,' but this isn't mentioned anywhere in the rest of the stimulus. The question stem asks, "Which one of the following is an assumption required by the argument?" This is a strengthen with a necessary premise. Based on the stimulus, the argument says sometimes a business cannot adapt without changing its core corporate philosophy and then concludes from this that sometimes a business cannot survive without becoming a different corporation. In arguing this, the argument has a pretty big gap between changing corporate philosophy and becoming a different corporation. In fact, if we're to accept the argument's conclusion, then we must necessarily assume that a changing in corporate philosophy makes the company becomes a different corporation. This is the gap in the argument and in this question, we can anticipate the necessary premise before looking at the answer choices. Additionally, as with all strengthen with a necessary premise questions, we can use the negation test to see whether the answer choices must be true in order for the argument to stand a chance. In negating the answers, we're effectively pretending that the opposite is true, and if this makes the argument fall apart, then we know that the answer choice in its original form is necessary for the argument. (C) says, "Different corporations have different core corporate philosophies." The negation for (C) is that different corporations don't have different core philosophies. This is a tricky answer choice, but when we negate it, we see that the negation doesn't make the argument fall apart. It's simply not required that, in order for the argument to hold, that there are different core corporate philosophies. It's entirely possible that different corporations have identical core corporate philosophies. What's not possible is that a corporation can change its core corporate philosophy without becoming a new corporation, as we anticipated above. (E) says, "A business cannot change its core corporate philosophy without becoming a different corporation." (E)'s negation is a business can change its core philosophy without becoming a different corporation. (E) is exactly what we anticipated in our argument analysis, and it is necessary for the argument because it bridges the gap between changing core corporate philosophy and becoming a different corporation. Additionally, if (E)'s negation were true, the argument would fall apart because there would be no connection between the argument's premise that sometimes a business cannot adapt without changing its core corporate philosophy and its conclusion that sometimes a business can survive only by becoming a new corporation. Because of this, (E) is the correct answer choice. Does this help? Let us know if you have any more questions!

Thanks @Ravi

@gideon, you're welcome! I'm happy to read that it helped!