We don’t have enough to suggest that the automobile industry KNEW that global warming would result from its activities or that it KNEW villagers would have to move because of global warming.

(B) concerns how manufacturers should be required to produce their goods. That doesn’t help us establish that manufacturers should help pay for something caused by what they produce.

(C) would allow us to conclude that the manufacturer should help pay for damage if governments are required to pay for it. But we have no idea whether governments are required to help pay for the villagers’ relocation.

Helps build a bridge from the premises to the conclusion. We know that the automobile industry makes products (cars) that contribute to global warming. Global warming has caused costly damage to others (it forced villagers to relocate at great expense). (D), then, allows us to conclude that the automobile manufacturers should be liable (i.e. responsible) for damage resulting from use of its cars. This supports a judgment that they should help pay for the villager’s relocation, which partially resulted from cars.

(E) establishes a necessary condition (”only if’) for requiring an industry to help pay for something. That would help us prove that an industry is NOT required to help pay for something. But we’re trying to prove that an industry SHOULD be required to help pay for something.