The logic here is much more reasonable than the stimulus’. If David hasn’t seen the film himself, that undermines his standing to critique the film. It makes him a less relevant authority.

(B) fails on “so I’ll cook something else for dinner tonight.” To match, (B) should say “so her way of cooking lamb must not be that great after all.”

“Medical reasons” also undermines Maria’s supposed hypocrisy.

To match, (C) should feature a solid argument from Susan about why climbing is safe, which the author dismisses because Susan doesn’t climb.

Instead, we just have an unsupported claim from Susan about why climbing is safe, which the author dismisses because of direct evidence undermining that claim.

Pat offers up a solid argument for why we should eat veggies, but the author dismisses that argument because Pat is a hypocrite.

That’s argumentum ad hominem, baby!

(E) is off-base from the jump because Gabriel isn’t making an argument for the author to dismiss – instead, the whole point is to make a personal judgment about Gabriel’s character.

The author also decides not to hire Gabriel because of direct evidence that hiring him wouldn’t be that great, rather than some alleged hypocrisy (which, again, would actually be relevant information in this particular case).