This answer choice does not apply because the author never provided sufficient or necessary conditions for high-tech equipment. Instead, in his conclusion, he ruled out high productivity as being a sufficient condition for high-tech equipment.

If this were true, the argument would lead to the conclusion that high productivity → high-tech equipment, which contradicts the author’s conclusion. By not ruling out the possibility that adequate training depends on high-tech equipment, the author’s argument is unsupported.

The desirability of increased productivity is irrelevant to this argument. The author discusses what things are necessary for high productivity, not when increased productivity might be good or bad for a business.

The author never assumes this, but instead says almost the opposite: that high productivity depends on adequate training. Additionally, we don’t know that educating workers is the same as providing adequate training, or that high productivity is the same as increased productivity.

The author presumes without justification that adequate training is not dependent on high-tech equipment, not that high-tech equipment cannot increase productivity. Increases in productivity are also not the same as the high productivity discussed by the author.