The conclusion is that the Magno-Blanket is probably able to relieve arthritic pain in older dogs.
How did the author draw this conclusion? The conclusion is based on a hospital study in which 75% of human patients reported reduced pain. (We are given that human and dog physiology are similar enough, and that the blanket would be as close to the dogs' joints. These are things that would strengthen the argument, but they are already included in the stimulus.)
Like those statements in parentheses, we want an answer that strengthens our evidence. We want this evidence to be as relevant to the conclusion as possible. E does so by adding credibility to the results of the hospital study. Generally, a treatment would have to outperform a placebo in order to be considered effective. E tells us that the treatment did so in this case, thus strengthening our evidence. If the treatment did not outperform the placebo, then we would have to question the results of the study. E protects the argument from this criticism.