Wrong flaw. Like the stimulus, (A) assumes a false dichotomy (the only pizza toppings are pepperoni and cheese). Unlike the stimulus, however, the false dichotomy is not in the context of rising vs. falling vs. remaining constant—there are infinite pizza toppings that the author in (A) ignores, while the commentator only ignores one possibility in the stimulus.

Wrong flaw. Like the stimulus, (B) makes use of a false dichotomy (things that aren’t proven are likely to be disproven). Unlike the stimulus, (B) doesn’t fully commit to the false dichotomy—the stimulus says the education quality “will surely” deteriorate, while (B) says that the conjecture is “more likely” to be disproved.

Wrong flaw. Like the stimulus, (C) makes use of a false dichotomy (things that don’t become more harmonious become more discordant). Unlike the stimulus, (C) doesn’t fully commit to the false dichotomy—the stimulus says that the education quality “will surely” deteriorate, while (C) says that the society “may” become more discordant.

This argument starts with the premise that the temperature outside won’t rise this afternoon. Knowing that the temperature won’t go up, the author assumes that it will go down. The stimulus and (D) rely on the cookie-cutter flaw of false dichotomy, wherein the author assumes that only two options exist. While it’s true that the temperature (or education quality) won’t rise, that doesn’t mean it will fall! There’s a third option: the temperature (or education quality) could remain constant.

No flaw. If it’s impossible for the car to start, we know that the car won’t start! Because (E) isn’t a flawed argument, it isn’t similar to the commentator’s argument.