This doesn’t have the same clear flaw as the stimulus. (A) makes an ethical argument about how much different magazine subscribers deserve to pay. Unlike the stimulus, it never assumes that past trends will continue indefinitely in the future.

(B) concludes that, because a potential problem (filing complaints about the manager) is currently under control (thanks to increased sales), steps to prevent it from worsening in the future should not be taken. This assumes that the increased sales will always continue. If they didn’t, taking action now to reduce the complaints might be wise.

Thus, (B) has the same flaw in its reasoning as the stimulus: assuming that the future must always resemble the past.

This doesn’t have the same clear flaw as the stimulus. (C) suggests a solution to a potential problem. By contrast, the stimulus erroneously concludes that no solution for a potential problem is necessary, because the future will always resemble the past.

This doesn’t have the same clear flaw as the stimulus. (D) suggests a proposed solution might have some drawbacks. By contrast, the stimulus erroneously concludes that no solution for a potential problem is necessary, because the future will always resemble the past.

This doesn’t have the same clear flaw as the stimulus. (E) argues that a past trend (price increases) will probably not continue. By contrast, the stimulus erroneously concludes that no solution for a potential problem is necessary, because the future will always resemble the past. (I.e., a past trend will continue.)