I've typically only seen these on the LSAT. This one isn't a very precisely-written example, but the idea is that we want to match the underlying logical structure. The original cites two separate requirements that show that Mary will have to take a science class. From this, it concludes that she won't just have to take art classes. (Note that this is a valid conclusion, so we want our answer to be a valid argument, also.)
E) shows two reasons that the building won't have to pay a county waste fee. From this, it correctly concludes that the building won't have to pay such a fee. This looks a lot like the original, except that it's more direct. The original said "She
will have to take science, so she
won't just take art." This one basically just says "There's no fee, so there won't be a fee."
Having said that, all the rest are worse fits.
A) is not a valid argument, since neither of the premises seem to clearly apply to the building in question.
B) seems like a valid argument, but it only has one reason for its conclusion, not two, so it doesn't match the original structure. Also, the conclusion changes the terms from "don't have to pay tax" to "don't have to withhold tax from receipts." It's not clear that those are the same.
C) only has one reason. Also, is it valid? It's not clear that the next payment will be this year.
D) just has one reason. The conclusion about "periodic adjustments" is a vaguer version of "every five years" in the premise, so we could say this argument is valid. Still, it doesn't match the structure of the original well.
Overall, I wouldn't worry too much about questions like these. If you do want to practice oddballs like this, get them straight from the LSAT, where the quality is extremely high.