Our goal in this chapter is to analyse the question, look at the options that explains the same way but in different configuration.

Option A - INCORRECT.
Presents a not so different view and configuration when related side by side with the original content. In which case, it falls short of the desired measure we want.

[ b] Option B - INCORRECT.[/b]
There is a contradiction here. The original content seeks to explain how ''airplanes's wings generates lift'' which is not what is explained in Option B which has it explanation as thus '' lift of an airplane'' the keyword generates is missing here and it was not replaced in a manner that suggests there's a clear understanding of the topic.

Option C - INCORRECT.
There's an unusual, abnormal scenario of misplaced punctuation here. The emphasis wasn't on ''equation'' furthermore, it was not reported in the original content that he named the equation after himself. It's grossly speculative to assume he did.

Option D - INCORRECT.
The response of the author was quite primary here, in that it didn't specify if it was Daniel or the Equation that explains the generation of the wing's lift. In fact, the option here is indefinite when compared with the original article.

Option E - CORRECT.
Finally, it got correctly that the equation was named in his remembrance and in turn the ''equation'' can be vital in the explanation of how airplane's wing generates lift.