Great question. This question is a strengthen with a necessary premise question, so we're looking for an answer choice that is an assumption that must be true in order for the argument to stand a chance.
We can use the negation test to see if, when we negate an answer choice, it makes the argument fall apart. If it goes, then we know that the answer choice in its original form is necessary for the argument, so it's the correct answer choice.
The argument is saying that it's a large misconception that those who are articulate know tons of words. The author states that actually, however, people with big vocabularies don't tend to engage in creative linguistic self-expression because they know words that mean what they're trying to say. The author concludes that having big vocabulary hinders one's ability to be articulate.
In this argument, the author is arguing that if people don't tend to try to describe ideas/things when they don't know the exact words for what they're trying to say, they're less likely to be articulate people.
See the big assumption that this argument depends on? The author is assuming that in order to be articulate, one has to be used to explaining things when they don't know the exact words for what they're trying to explain.
Even if we weren't able to anticipate the necessary premise we can use the negation test in the answer choices to see if the negation makes the argument fall apart since this is a strengthen with a necessary premise question.
You asked about (E), so let's take a look.
(E) says, "In unfamiliar situations, even people with large vocabularies often do not have specifically suitable words available."
The negation of (E) is, "In unfamiliar situations, people with large vocabularies always have specifically suitable words available."
If the negation is true, the argument isn't wrecked. In fact, the argument implicitly assumes the negation, so if (E)'s negation were true and added to the argument, it would strengthen, not destroy, the argument, so this definitely isn't a necessary premise. If anything, the argument is assuming the opposite of what (E) is saying, so we can eliminate this.
(A) says, "When people are truly articulate, they have the capacity to express themselves in situations in which their vocabularies seem inadequate."
The negation of (A) is, "Even when people are truly articulate, they do not necessarily have the capacity to express themselves in situations in which their vocabularies seem inadequate."
Would this wreck the argument? It certainly would because the argument states that people who have large vocabularies "have no incentive for, and tend not to engage in, the kind of linguistic self-expression that is required when no available words seem adequate," and in doing so, the argument assumes that being articulate requires the capacity of creative linguistic self-expression. As a result, we know (A) is a necessary premise, and we can select it as our answer choice.
Does this help? Let us know if you have any more questions!
