Neither passage discusses limitations on how translatable one language is into another. The passages are focused on how language might or might not influence thought.

This best captures the question each passage is concerned with answering. Passage A discusses research that shows language does not restrict what people can think, but merely influences what they think about. Passage B discusses research that shows language might create concepts, mediate concepts, or direct attention to concepts.

Neither passage discusses why languages are different. The passages are focused on whether language can affect thought and if so, how. But they don’t explore whether thought can affect language. This reverses the causal relationship that the passages explore.

Passage B doesn’t discuss the evidence that was the basis of Whorf’s claims. So it wouldn’t make sense for one of the purposes of Passage B to be the exploration of whether Whorf’s claims are based on better evidence. Perhaps someone might take the research discussed in Pasage B as supporting Whorf; but that still doesn’t relate to the evidence Whorf actually relied on and whether it was stronger than previously thought.

Passage A doesn’t discuss the influence of language on thoughts about numbers. So regardless of whether you think (E) is a concern of Passage B, it’s not a concern of Passage A.