Here, there are several options that looks very likely to speak the mind of the writer but we'd try as much as possible to select the best among them all.

In option A;
For the fact that companies intend saving money does not translate to declining profit margin. In fact, in some situations, companies still hire staffs each year in order to enlarge their businesses. It would be unfair to totally heap the blame on profit margin structure of the company. It is, however, incorrect

In option B;
the singular fact that numerous companies now procure these equipment shows the cost does not put them off and that the cost is not put into consideration at all. It is an inconsistent statement to say "the factory intend to save" then turn back to say they buy "equipment that are costly". Hence, it is incorrect

In option C;
It is a fallacy to claim that the employees were not skilled enough because from the statement of the company they only intend to Save Money and not dispose the workers because they are not productive enough. Hence it is incorrect

In option D;
This could be seen as a correct argument that further buttresses the position of the writer. It seeks to further elaborate that the disposed workers would become instant employment problems to the government. The government in turn, will tax the companies heavily to secure the deeded funds to cater for the problem. It is thus the most correct answer here

In option E;
This would still not compensate for the job loss. How does giving someone a notice of disengagement translate to helping him secure another job? Absolutely NO. Hence, it is incorrect