This reasons that because X (perform difficult music) requires Y (develop musical skill), and Y requires Z (long hours of practice), a feature of Z (being tedious) must also apply to X (perform difficult music). This is flawed because X doesn’t have to have the feature (being tedious) even if it requires something that has the feature.

This isn’t parallel, because the conclusion doesn’t assert that it is expensive to run an expanding business. There’s a difference between an expanding business and businesses generally. The argument in the stimulus didn’t involve this shift in the subject of the conclusion.

This doesn’t involve a claim that X requires Y, which requires Z. Rather, although we get one claim about what’s required, we get another claim about what’s “permissible,” which isn’t a statement about what’s required.

This doesn’t match, because although we get claims that X (being manager) requires Y (evaluating people), which requires Z (being subjective), the argument doesn’t try to apply a feature of Z to X. Rather, a premise tells us that people resent “being evaluated subjectively,” which is a claim that combines Y (evaluating people) and Z (being subjective). We’re looking for a premise that tells us something about Z, not about the combination of Y and Z.

(E) doesn’t involve a claim that X requires Y, which requires Z. In addition, the argument doesn’t try to apply a feature of Z directly to X.