Thanks for the question! Let's take a look at (E), which is worded in a fairly complicated manner. It tells us that the radio analogy is cited as an example of a case in which something consisting purely of energy depends on the existence of something material to provide evidence of its existence. In other words, the broadcast program (which in this analogy consists purely of energy) depends on the existence of the radio itself (something material) to provide evidence of its (the broadcast program's) existence. One small problem here is that we never mention concepts like "pure energy," which should get us to start doubting this answer choice. Most importantly, the point isn't to show that the broadcast program needs the radio to prove the broadcast program's existence. It's that we DON'T prove that broadcast program STOPS existing after the radio is damaged. If we want to diagram this out a little (not necessary at all), it's not trying to show that
Radio - > Broadcast program
But rather, it's trying to show that we don't normally conclude that
~Radio - > ~Broadcast program
It's a subtle distinction, but an important one. Hope this helps!
