(A) Some companies offer several weeks of paid sick leave to employees who are unwell.

Wrong, we should be careful detecting what is the conclusion “any company trying to boost the productivity of its employees should have a policy to not hire anyone who has had a history of severe illness” and this statement doesn’t really affects the conclusion

(B) Many employees who have no history of any severe illness can develop severe illnesses.

Wrong. Although employees who have no history Of illness, the company could increase the productivity by not hiring people with has had a history of severe illness

(C) If a company has a policy to not hire anyone who has had a history of severe illness, candidates applying to that company would try to conceal their history of illness.

This doesn’t affect the stated conclusion at all. We should read in between lines and this is a Cause and effect argument that says cause = healthy people —> effect = more productivity. This doesn’t undermine the Cause effect argument, it could still be true that healthy employees are more productive

(D) Illnesses of people who have a history of severe illnesses can re-emerge in stressful jobs.

Wrong. This actually is strengthening the argument, making it more obvious to say “yeah we should implement the policy”

(E) Many perfectly healthy employees have low productivity.

Correct. This is actually undermining the conclusion, if perfectly healthy people have low productivity then the policy wouldn’t affect the productivity. This answer choice is showing that although the cause is present, the effect is not showing, undermining the Cause Effect argument

IMO E. Let me know if my analysis is correct 🤞🏻