This leads to the wrong conclusion. The author doesn’t conclude that the manufacturer should compensate workers who were harmed by T. She argues that the manufacturer is responsible for the harm caused by T, since it could’ve prevented the harm by investigating T.

This is the opposite of what we need. (B) says that if a manufacturer is responsible for a consequence, then that consequence was preventable. We know that the T’s consequence was preventable, but (B) doesn’t help us establish that the manufacturer is indeed responsible.

Wrong trigger and wrong conclusion. The manufacturer was not aware of T’s risks. Even if it was, the author concludes that the manufacturer is responsible for T’s consequences, not that it had an obligation to inform workers of T’s risks.

This suggests that the fact that T’s consequences were preventable is irrelevant in determining whether the manufacturer is responsible for those consequences. We need to know what factors are relevant in determining whether the manufacturer is responsible.

T’s consequences would’ve been prevented if the manufacturer investigated T. So the consequences were preventable. (E) helps justify the conclusion that the manufacturer should be held responsible for T’s consequences, since they harmed innocent people and were preventable.