Explanation

Reading the question: This may be a question in which you find it natural to skip back and forth between the prompt and the stem. Regardless, we'll take our time and read everything before moving on. There is going to be an "obsolescence of skills." How can the company prepare for it? That's going to depend on how exactly it's going to happen. There are two critical details: wearable devices and two years. The answer will be related to or at least accommodate those points. If you identify one or more details that are critical to the argument or question at hand, you can immediately make those details your filter to evaluate the answer choices.

Applying our filter to the answer choices, we see that (A) and (B) both have time frames, and hence are at least vaguely connected to "two years." In (A), the training comes too late, so that's wrong. Choice (B) mentions two years, which sounds nice, but the actual measure taken just adds fuel to the fire by getting more wearable devices; there's no remedy offered for the obsolescence of skills. So (B) is out. In (C), a survey might determine the extent of the problem, but it doesn't provide a solution to the problem. Choice (D) sounds fancier but amounts to the same problem as (C). Finally, (E) gives a rather broad promise: any training necessary. Rather unrealistic. But the stem says, "If feasible." If (E) were feasible, it would be able to solve this problem and all kinds of problems. The correct answer is (E).