I think E goes beyond what the author is saying. E establishes a test that you need to be capable of commanding a missile wing to hold a top leadership position.
My first issue with this test is that it ignores the main reason why the member opposes this candidate. It's not that the candidate isn't capable of a specific job, it's that their conduct would ban them from serving in many leadership positions.
I also dislike the specificity of the test in E. Would this test mean that only Air Force personnel and naval aviators would be eligible? Surely barring submarine commanders or intelligence officers from ever serving as top leadership because they aren't qualified to run one specific type of unit would be a bizarre move, and we have no support for the idea that the member would support it.
Ultimately the reason why the author wants to oppose the candidate is that their poor choices prevent them from being a good leader. While A isn't a great summation of that, it's the least bad.
I also see why E is attractive to be fair. If this were a sufficient assumption, E would be correct, and I think this would also be true of a principle strengthen question. This is a somewhat odd question type, which is more akin to like a parallel reasoning than to a strengthen.
