(A) isn’t parallel because it doesn’t assume that what’s historically been true will apply to the next pet. The claim about what will happen “if the next pet ... is a parrot” could apply regardless of the Gupta’s past history of pets. (A) could have been correct if the conclusion had started with “if the next pet ... is NOT a fish.”

(B) isn’t parallel because the conclusion isn’t about the next pet. So (B) doesn’t involve reasoning from past to the next instance.

(C) isn’t parallel because the conclusion concerns every future pet the family will ever own. But the stimulus’s conclusion only concerned the next instance. The argument in the stimulus tried to apply past trends to the next instance, but didn’t project that trend to the future for every instance.

(D) isn’t parallel, because it makes an unwarranted assumption that fish aren’t very noisy. The argument in the stimulus didn’t involve an assumption about blues songs; the only assumption was that the past trend would apply to the next instance.

(E) applies the past trend to the next instance. In the past, the family has owned either fish or parrots. Most parrots are very noisy. So, if the next pet is not a fish, it will probably be very noisy (on the assumption that the next pet will also be limited to fish or parrot).