This is the wrong flaw. (A) mistakenly assumes that the exact average will be a number that could be on a license plate (i.e., a whole number). But the average could be a number with a decimal. By contrast, the stimulus erroneously assumes that, if every member of a group has a certain kind of trait, they must all have the exact same trait.

This is the wrong flaw. (B) assumes that every member of a group with a certain kind of trait must have a different trait. By contrast, the stimulus erroneously assumes that, if every member of a group has a certain kind of trait, they must all have the exact same trait.

(C) concludes that only one insurance number is necessary for the group (of Edmonton citizens) as a whole. The reasoning is that only one insurance number is necessary for each individual citizen.

This is the same flaw as the stimulus. Even if each citizen has to have one insurance number, the author gives no reason why all citizens would have to have the exact same insurance number.

This is the wrong flaw. (D) fails to consider that, even if no individual cause is sufficient to produce an outcome, multiple causes together can produce that outcome. By contrast, the stimulus erroneously assumes that, if every member of a group has a certain kind of trait, they must all have the exact same trait.

Whether this is read literally, it doesn’t have the same flaw as the stimulus. If read literally, this is a valid argument, unlike the stimulus: there’s no moment when Vlad’s life can end.

If one reads this as only referring to Vlad’s life so far, it’s the wrong flaw. In that case, (E) fails to consider that the future may not resemble the past. By contrast, the stimulus erroneously assumes that, if every member of a group has a certain kind of trait, they must all have the exact same trait.