Mismatched structure. This is not an argument (with a premise supporting a conclusion), this is just a claim without support.

The argument operates by stating that anyone who considers one thing (avocados) to belong to a set (fruit) should also believe that some quality (being higher in fat than pound cake) applies to at least some members of that set, because that quality applies to that particular thing.

Mismatched premises. The stimulus operates by claiming that one thing (music videos) falls into a set (art form); (C) operates by citing a general claim (that no taste is universal).

Mismatched premises and conclusion. The stimulus operates by claiming that one thing falls into a set so some quality applies to at least some members of that set; (D) operates by claiming that most of one group (people who eat a variety of vegetables) falls into another group (those who eat well-balanced meals), so members of that first group probably have some quality (being well nourished).

Mismatched premises and conclusion. The stimulus operates by claiming that one thing falls into a set so some quality applies to at least some members of that set. (E) is an invalid argument that assumes that someone with one preference (fruit over vegetables) should have another, generally unrelated preference (cake over bread).