It’s unclear whether “justifying current political power” is an ethical innovation. If no, then (A) is irrelevant. If yes, then (A) means ethical inventiveness can benefit the inventor, weakening the conclusion that ethical inventiveness brings only pain to the inventor.

This strengthens both claims in the conclusion. The politically powerful believe technically ingenious people are useful to them, so they reward such people. And they believe ethically inventive people are a threat to their power, so they punish such people.

We want to help show that ethical inventiveness brings pain, while technical ingenuity brings benefits. The fact that these two traits belong to different sets of people tells us nothing about if, or why, one trait would have bad effects while the other would have good effects.

We want to help show that technical ingenuity brings benefits (and that ethical inventiveness brings pain), given the views of politically powerful people. But (D) says technical ingenuity could pose a threat to the politically powerful. If anything, (D) weakens.

The conclusion is about the consequences of both ethical inventiveness and technical ingenuity. At best, (E) strengthens only the half the conclusion. Even then, (E) merely suggests that some people might be punished, but the conclusion says ethical inventiveness guarantees pain.