Leads to wrong conclusion. There’s a difference between being guilty of manslaughter and being “charged” with manslaughter. The fact someone might be charged with manslaughter does not establish that they are guilty of the crime of manslaughter.

(B) presents a necessary condition (”only if”) for being found guilty of manslaughter. That would allow us to conclude that, if the condition were not met, the medical team is NOT guilty of manslaughter. But we’re trying to prove that the medical team IS guilty of manslaughter. (B) doesn’t help us reach that conclusion.

(C) presents a necessary condition (”only when”) for being found guilty of manslaughter. That would allow us to conclude that, if the condition were not met, the medical team is NOT guilty of manslaughter. But we’re trying to prove that the medical team IS guilty of manslaughter. (C) doesn’t help us reach that conclusion.

(D) gets us from the premise to the conclusion. According to (D), if you intentionally stop a person’s life functions, and that stopping of life functions is permanent, then you’ve committed manslaughter. We know the medical team intentionally stops life functions during the procedure. So, if the life functions don’t resume (i.e. the stopping is permanent), then the medical team has committed manslaughter.

(E) tells us that intentionally stopping life function is manslaughter, but with an exception: the patient agrees to the procedure and might die without treatment. We don’t know that this exception hasn’t been met, so (E) doesn’t help us conclude that the medical team would be guilty of manslaughter. If the patient does agree to the procedure and might die without treatment, the medical team might not be committing manslaughter.