Wu says that a restaurant should not be chosen because it has a certain quality (slow service). Miller replies that a restaurant with the opposite quality (fast service) should not be chosen, so this restaurant should be chosen.

Like the stimulus, Miller draws a positive conclusion: this restaurant should be chosen. But his only support is negative: restaurants without a trait it has (non-fast service) should not be chosen. This is a reason why other restaurants could, potentially, be bad; it isn’t a reason why this restaurant is good enough to be chosen.

This is the wrong flaw. In (B), Miller says that the quality (aggression) that Wu thinks is bad is actually good. In the stimulus, Miller says that the opposite (honesty) of the trait Wu thinks is bad (dishonesty) is itself bad.

(B) would be a better parallel if Miller said: “Passive people generally get pushed around too much to be good spokespeople.”

This doesn’t have the same clear flaw as the stimulus. In (C), Miller argues that the quality Wu thinks is bad (brightness) is actually good. In the stimulus, Miller says that the opposite (honesty) of the trait Wu thinks is bad (dishonesty) is itself bad.

This doesn’t have the same clear flaw as the stimulus. In (D), Miller argues that the quality Wu thinks is bad (high cost) is actually good. In the stimulus, Miller says that the opposite (honesty) of the trait Wu thinks is bad (dishonesty) is itself bad.

This doesn’t parallel the stimulus. In (E), Wu puts forward a candidate, and Miller rejects her. In the stimulus, Wu rejects a candidate, and Miller defends him.