In reading the stimulus, we see that the problem with the argument is that the premise and the conclusion say the same exact thing. This shows that the error this argument is committing is circular reasoning. You can't have a premise that says the same thing as the conclusion.
(A) says, "mistakes something that is necessary to bring about a situation for something that in itself is enough to bring about that situation"
There's no confusion between the necessary and sufficient conditions in the argument. The concepts remain on their respective sides in both the premise and the conclusion. (A) fails to point out that the flaw in this argument is one of circular reasoning, so we can get rid of this choice.
(E) says, "draws a conclusion that simply restates a claim given in support of that conclusion"
This is precisely the flaw in the argument. The argument, in having a premise that says the same thing as its conclusion, is committing an error of circular reasoning. (E) paraphrases our anticipation well, so it's the correct answer choice.
Does this make sense? Let us know if you have any more questions!
