(A) is talking about a necessary condition for an action (construction) to occur, and concludes that since the condition is fulfilled, the action will happen. This differs from the argument, which concludes that an action won’t happen because a result of the action won’t happen.

The argument in the stimulus is that an action won’t happen because the result of the action won’t happen. This doesn’t match — in fact (B) doesn’t have a conditional structure at all.

(C) is an argument by analogy — concluding that since something happened in one industry, it’s likely to happen in another. We can tell that this isn’t the same as the argument in the stimulus because the argument in the stimulus doesn’t have any analogical reasoning.

This would be right if it said “accepting stock as a bonus would result in the CEO paying more in taxes next year, and he won’t do anything that would require him to pay more in taxes, so he won’t accept the stock”. But it doesn’t say that, so it’s not parallel reasoning.

This is the same reasoning as in the stimulus. (E) states that an action (installing floodlights) would lead to a result (useless telescope), that the department would never support an action that would produce that result, and that thus the department won’t support the action.