This question is hard because the correct answer is not what you would expect.

Now, since we are looking for a logical flaw, we must find the conclusion and the premise(s).

The conclusion is:
Robots will not eliminate demeaning work -- only substitute one type of demeaning work for another.

The evidence on which this conclusion is based is:
Engineers are only designing robots that can be properly maintained with the least expensive, least skilled human labor possible.

Now, when I first read this question, I thought the most obvious flaw was the assumption that "least expensive...least skilled" was equivalent to "demeaning."

(A) out of scope. way out.
(B) tempting. Actually, though, this is untrue. The author does not assume that robots create demeaning work - the author provides an example of how that work is needed to maintain robots. Therefore, it's stated, not assumed.
(C) doesn't matter how the engineers feel about their jobs.
(D) way out of scope.
(E) Consider this answer choice. IF it is true that the amount of demeaning work eliminated by the robots is GREATER than the amount they create, the conclusion (that robots will not eliminate demeaning work) is clearly false -- the sum total of demeaning work in the world will have decreased because of the robots.

I can see where one might get tangled up with "eliminate," but ultimately the word "eliminate" does not mean "eliminate ALL." When you hear that GE is "eliminating jobs," it doesn't mean they fired EVERYONE.

_________________
Every once in awhile I host a free online workshop/question&answer session. called Zen and the Art of LSAT You can check out a few recordings from past sessions here: http://www.manhattanlsat.com/zen-and-the-art.cfm