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, since the retrofit cannot be done before autumn. Therefore G cannot happen. The signature has four parts: two chained necessary conditions, G needs X and X needs Y; the block falls on the second link, Y; the impossibility is absolute, not merely likely; and the conclusion is a definite negative.
(B) reproduces all four. Winning the contract, G, requires a depot in the zone, X, necessary because the shipper awards the contract only to a firm with a depot there. The depot requires a zoning permit, Y, necessary because opening that depot requires approval. The permit is impossible this quarter, since 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.
You 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 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.