Not necessary, because the argument relies only on the claim that our emotional tendencies are unchanged. There may have been physical changes, but that doesn’t relate to the fact we haven’t experienced changes in our emotional tendencies.

Not necessary, because the concept of being “in control” of emotions is irrelevant. We have no reason to think that being “in control” of our emotions is related to making wiser choices or emotional tendencies.

Not necessary, because the concept of learning the “lessons of history” is irrelevant. We have no reason to think that learning the “lessons of history” is related to making wiser choices or emotional tendencies.

Too extreme to be necessary. Although the author does assume that our emotional tendencies are relevant to the wisdom of the choices we’re able to make, this doesn’t imply that humans choose on the basis of emotions “alone.” Humans can make choices in part based on things like logic and reason, as long as those factors don’t outweigh the impact of lack of change in emotional tendencies for our ability to make wiser choices.

Necessary, because this is the link the author needs to get from the premise to the conclusion. If (E) were not true — if humans could make wiser choices WITHOUT having an essential change in their emotional dispositions (emo. tendencies = emo. dispositions) — then the fact we haven’t had a change in our emotional dispositions wouldn’t prove anything about our ability to make wiser choices.