I'm going to go the other route from the existing Answer and ask:
What useful information does the first diagram have that the second does not?
Going by the law of transitivity, if C implies D and D implies E, then C implies E. Thus, I would argue that your first diagram is stating that 'C implies E' twice.
The only scenario I can think of for this to be useful is if you really, REALLY need to check that C is done before starting E, regardless of whether or not D has been done yet. Which, in turn, implies both that:
- 'C->D' is a 'soft requirement', in that it is possible it might not be upheld. That is, we can't trust that C was done even if we know that D was.
- We care more about C->E than we do about any of the other predecessor dependencies.
I don't think either of those apply in your situation. Perhaps you can think of some other reason for which stating 'C->E' twice is useful. If you cannot, I would suggest for you to simplify the diagram.