(C) says, "These systems will most likely be used as legal research tools rather than as aids in legal analysis."
The author tinks that presently, legal reasoning systems aren't really useful at all, either as aids that help to facilitate people's ability to solve legal problems or as tools that can help to analyze legal problems independently. Given that the technology that will end up supporting adequate legal reasoning systems is pretty far off, we do not know whether using the systems as aids or as tools will ultimately end up being more likely. Thus, we can get rid of (C).
(E) says, "Developing adequate legal reasoning systems would require research breakthroughs by computer specialists."
Recall that we're looking to identify a statement about legal reasoning systems that the author would be most likely to agree with. In reading (E), we see that there is textual support for this answer choice in the second paragraph, as there the author discusses computers' inability to engage in the type of interpretation that legal analysis requires, stating in lines 36-37 that this is "far beyond their capabilities at present or in the foreseeable future. This strongly supports (E), as if neither the current technology nor any sort of technology in the foreseeable future can perform the necessary task of interpretations, we'd need a huge advancement in computer technology to make a legal reasoning system. Thus, (E) is the correct answer choice.
Hope this helps. Let us know if you have any other questions!