The premises do not connect to form an “X requires Y, which requires Z” relationship. We’re told that if factory safety is a serious concern, then everyone must report potentially dangerous situations. Then we’re told that everyone reporting on dangerous situations is necessary for something else. Structurally, the premises look like this:

If X, then Y.
If Z, then Y.

Although the argument has the “X requires Y, which requires Z” structure, the conclusion is about Z, rather than X. We wanted a conclusion that we shouldn’t expect X to be true.

This isn’t parallel because the conclusion presents a conditional relationship rather than an assertion of probable fact. Structurally (C) looks like this: X requires Y, which requires Z. So X requires Z.

But we wanted this: X requires Y, which requires Z. So we shouldn’t expect X.

X (produce safest vehicles) requires Y (conduct tests), which requires Z (huge cost overruns). Thus, we won’t have X (produce safest vehicles). Although this answer expresses the conclusion with more certainty than the stimulus, which isn’t a perfect parallel, (D) is the most parallel compared to the other answers. It’s the only one that presents a conditional chain (X requires Y, which requires Z) in the premises and concludes that X isn’t true.

Although this has the X requires Y, which requires Z structure, the conclusion doesn’t match. Structurally, (E)’s conclusion asserts that we shouldn’t do Y. But we’re looking for a conclusion that says we shouldn’t expect X to be true.