We don’t care about whether or not the committee will actually implement the changes. We only care about whether James was misleading them, so (A) is not necessary.

Whether or not the chair would have been opposed to any other recommendations is irrelevant. She told James she wouldn’t approve his proposal if it didn’t include all his final recommendations, so her hypothetical reaction to those recommendations doesn’t impact the argument.

Like (D), (C) is attempting to provide a potential reason why James might have lied, but we don’t care about his motives. It could have been intentional or an honest mistake, without changing whether or not he misled the committee.

Like (C), (D) is attempting to provide a potential reason why James might have lied, but we don’t care about his motives. It could have been intentional or an honest mistake, without changing whether or not he misled the committee.

We must know that the proposal failed the necessary condition established in the premises—that it include all the final recommendations—and (E) successfully fills that gap.