Abstract the argument's logical form, then match the choice with the same form regardless of topic. Strip the surface from the original and you get a two-link chain of necessary conditions ending in an impossibility. To reach the goal G (host the exhibition next spring), the museum needs X (secure the gallery); X is necessary because the owners lend 'only to a venue that has such a gallery.' To get X, the museum needs Y (finish the retrofit); Y is necessary because securing the gallery 'requires completing the retrofit.' But Y is impossible on time (the retrofit cannot be done before autumn). Therefore G cannot happen. The signature has four parts: (1) two chained necessary conditions, G needs X and X needs Y; (2) the block falls on the second link, Y; (3) the impossibility is absolute, not merely likely; (4) the conclusion is a definite negative.
(B) reproduces all four. Winning the contract (G) requires a depot in the zone (X, necessary: awarded 'only to a firm with a depot there'); the depot requires a zoning permit (Y, necessary: 'opening that depot requires approval'); the permit is impossible this quarter (the board will issue none); therefore the firm will not win. Same two-link necessary-condition chain, same absolute block on the second link, same definite negative conclusion. (B) is correct.
Why the others only look parallel. A fast reader can eliminate two choices on direction alone: (A) ends in a positive prediction ('will expand') and (D) ends in a hedged 'most likely will,' while the original ends in a flat 'will not,' so neither can match. That screen leaves (B), (C), and (E), all of which end in a definite negative, and this is where the real discrimination lives. (C) is a valid-looking argument but has only one necessary condition blocked (the orchestra-pit repair); it lacks the second link that makes the original a chain, so it parallels a simpler structure. (E) denies a sufficient condition ('if it submits by March, it will qualify') and concludes failure; because submitting by March is only stated as enough, not as required, failing to do it does not force the negative conclusion, a different and weaker move than the original's necessary-condition reasoning. (A) goes further astray, satisfying its single necessary condition and predicting success, which runs the inference in the reverse direction. Only (B) carries the full two-link necessary-condition chain to a definite negative, so it is the unique match.