Incorrect. Even if (A) were negated — i.e., even if computer-software writers were influential enough for the government to consider doing this —that would be a hypothetical change that would apply to the future. It wouldn't destroy the author's argument that computer-software writers' profit rights are currently unprotected in Jawade. So (A) isn't a necessary assumption.

Correct. This is the assumption we identified in our analysis. The author argues that, because neither copyright nor patent laws cover the work of computer-software writers in Jawade, the profit rights of those writers are unprotected. This necessarily assumes that there are no other kinds of laws that protect their rights. If there are — i.e., if (B) were negated — then the author's argument would fall apart.

Irrelevant. The argument is about the profit rights of computer-software engineers in Jawade, not about software that is imported to Jawade, however much or little of such software there is.

Incorrect. Regardless of whether computer software is closer to writing than to inventions, the courts in Jawade have ruled that neither copyright nor patent law applies to computer software. That's the key to the author's argument; whether computer software is actually closer to fitting in one category or the other is irrelevant.

Incorrect. The author bases his argument on the fact that computer-software writers' work is not covered by copyright or patent law in Jawade. He doesn't make any claims about Jawade's copyright or patent laws themselves, or whether those laws have changed from when they were first adopted. Even if those laws had been modified, they still wouldn't apply to computer-software writers' work in Jawade, based on the courts' ruling. So the author's argument wouldn't be damaged if (E) were false.