This isn’t a valid argument, so it can’t parallel the valid argument in the stimulus. (A) isn’t valid because even if there’s a chance of storms most days this week, that doesn’t guarantee that there will be a storm this week. So we can’t be sure that the temperature will drop abruptly this week.

This is a valid argument based on an inference from “all” and “some.”

All things written by Melinda are disturbing.

Some sonnets are written by Melinda.

Thus, some sonnets are disturbing.

(C) isn’t a valid argument, so it can’t parallel the valid argument in the stimulus. (C) isn’t valid because even if every shop is “capable” of good work, and Gianna “can” have her car worked on at those shops, that doesn’t guarantee she will get her car worked on at those shops or that those shops actually will do good work. Being capable of good work does not imply that one will always do good work.

(D) isn’t a valid argument, so it can’t parallel the valid argument in the stimulus. (D) isn’t valid because even though every lake nearby contains healthy fish, that doesn’t imply that every fish in a nearby lake is healthy. It’s possible that there are many unhealthy fish in nearby lakes (in addition to the healthy ones), and the minnows in the nearby lakes could be among the unhealthy fish.

Close, but the conclusion isn’t parallel, because it doesn’t assert that “some” cornmeal is healthful and organic. (E)’s conclusion specifies “the cornmeal used at Matteo’s Trattoria,” but we’re looking for a conclusion that states a more general relationship between some cornmeal and being healthful/organic. (E) could have been correct if the conclusion in the stimulus were “the halogen lamps on display at Furniture Labyrinth are well crafted”.