Not necessary, because (A) confuses sufficient and necessary conditions. The author believes that if we don’t get more funding, then we won’t make significant advances. That doesn’t imply the author thinks that if we DO get more funding, that we WILL make significant advances.

Not necessary, because although the author thinks that in order for prestige to increase, we need to get funding from institutions besides profit-driven ones, that doesn’t imply that once prestige increases, the funding will “subsequently increase.” There’s no evidence the author thinks increased prestige will lead to increased funding.

Not necessary, because “forgoing the funding” it currently gets from profit-driven institutions is a separate issue that the argument doesn’t relate to. The author believes we need to secure more funding from places that are not profit-driven institutions; this doesn’t imply we need to stop accepting money from profit-driven institutions or stop using it.

Necessary, because if it were not true — if funding for basic research IS likely to increase even if funding from sources other than profit-driven institutions does not increase — then we don’t have any reason to think that we need more funding from sources other than profit-driven institutions. The negation of (D) opens the possibility that we can be likely to secure more funding for basic science research, and therefore leave open the possibility that we can be likely to gain prestige, without doing what the author claims is necessary for that likelihood of prestige.

Not necessary, because whether the profit-driven institutions “benefit” is irrelevant. What matters is whether the chemistry department needs to turn to other sources besides profit-driven institutions in order to get more funding for basic science research. We have no reason to think that who benefits from that research influences what sources the department must look to for increased funding.