The argument illustrates a possible consequence (managers refusing advice when it would have led to benefit) for a group (mid-level managers that ask companies to hire additional employees) to recommend that this group have proper information/support for their argument to avoid losing credibility.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (B) is making a recommendation on delivery, but the stimulus makes a recommendation on substance.

(B) says “Even if they have their facts straight,” where as the stimulus and (A) are distinguishing between factual and appropriate evidence vs. not.

The stimulus also outlines a hypothetical where it is stated that given advice would be of definite benefit, and (B) doesn’t do this.

Mismatched conclusion. (C) is making a recommendation on substance (emotionally compelling evidence) like the stimulus, but in the conclusion, it ranks this kind of evidence above strong/factual evidence, unlike the stimulus.

The stimulus also outlines a hypothetical where it is stated that given advice would be of definite benefit, and (C) doesn’t do this.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. The stimulus is making a recommendation about the type of evidence/support used in a person’s pursuit of their goal. This is dealing with time investment.

The stimulus also outlines a hypothetical where it is stated that given advice would be of definite benefit, and (D) doesn’t do this.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. The stimulus is describing a situation where loss of credibility led to eventual consequence, and that is absent from (E).

The stimulus also outlines a hypothetical where it is stated that given advice would be of definite benefit, and (E) doesn’t do this.