(A) only talks about the company’s computers. It doesn’t use evidence about the computers to generalize about all of the company’s electronics, for instance.

(B) claims that because some antianxiety drugs are addictive and have bad side effects, all antianxiety drugs should be abandoned. This is the same reasoning as in the stimulus — it provides evidence that some subset is flawed, and concludes on that basis that the broader category should be eliminated.

(C) provides evidence about the whole category (all intoxicated drivers are dangerous), which it uses to support an argument about the whole category (we should get all intoxicated drivers off the road). In contrast, the stimulus provides evidence about only a subset, and uses the evidence to support a conclusion about the whole.

(C) makes a conclusion about a subset (peaches) based on information about the whole (fruit in general). This is different from the stimulus, which makes a conclusion about the whole based on evidence about a subset.

(E) doesn’t use evidence about a subset to make a conclusion about the whole. If it had given evidence about past revenue for one product line, and used this to support a conclusion about all revenue, that would make it more similar to the stimulus.