The author doesn’t address this. She discusses what’s required for these scans to help researchers; she makes no claim about how likely this is to happen.

The author doesn’t address this. We know we need accurate information, but there’s no discussion of confidence in that accuracy.

There’s nothing prescriptive in this argument (i.e. should or should not). The argument concludes a conditional relationship, not a judgment of how something should be viewed.

This isn’t addressed in the argument. We know that the reports need to be accurate to be helpful, but there’s no information about the scans evaluating accuracy.

This accurately restates the conclusion. (E) is a conditional relationship between accurate reports and helpfulness, and that’s what the author concludes.