(A)'s conclusion is too strong: rather than concluding our view of pre-printing-press literature is inaccurate, (A) concludes it cannot possibly ever be accurate. That's a meaningful leap in logical strength.

(A) should arguably survive your shallow dip, though, because it preserves the stimulus' general "unrepresentative sample" reasoning.

(B) lacks the stimulus' "unrepresentative sample" reasoning. At its best, (B) claims we have an accurate (not misleading) impression of '60s TV because the sample we have access to is large (not unrepresentative).

(C) identifies a particular sample (CD-ROMs) as unrepresentative (skewed toward gamers) and therefore likely to give a misleading impression of the broader category (publishers). That's a match with our stimulus.

The cleanest reason to dismiss (D) is the difference between incomplete and inaccurate. There's no indication that the sample of silent films we have is unrepresentative, and no conclusion that our impression of the silent film era is therefore misleading.

(E) should fail your shallow dip when it concludes our impression will be accurate rather than inaccurate. The word "probably" is also a red flag, since the stimulus' claims are all certain rather than probable.