Explanation

Reading the question: this prompt presents an argument--and it's pseudo-syllogistic--so we can analyze it through term matching.



Here we have a double comparison, which is much clearer now that we have omitted the distracting fact that the website is about fashion. There are two key connections or assumptions, one for each row. We can be pretty confident that the answer will give us one or both of these and will filter the answer choices on that basis.

Applying the filter, we focus on (E). We confirm by comparing the phrases with the prompt; it matches our second prediction. Choices (A) through (C) all introduce out-of-scope comparisons; each of those new terms, "difficult," "useful," "unique," essentially creates a problem, because in each case another statement is missing, such as "whether something is difficult is key to whether it should be patentable." Choice (D) is off, because it could easily be true or false, as the material points of the argument are the two comparisons made.

Logical proof: we can use the negation test. Suppose that the programming of the website were nothing at all like functional clothing design? If we accepted that statement as a fact, the argument would fall apart. The negation of (E) weakens, the argument, so (E) strengthens the argument. The correct answer is (E).

It is fitting that we ended with term matching, which we saw in our first Critical Reasoning question. GMAT questions do not require ornate methods. If you master the process of creating an expectation of the answer choices, applying that filter, and seeking logical proof, you will have mastered GMAT Critical Reasoning.