Wrong flaw. (A) treats a “some” statement as an absolute statement. While people may sometimes develop a preference for food they initially disliked, we can’t infer that you’ll eventually like a food you initially disliked. There may be some foods you’ll never like. The stimulus, on the other hand, doesn’t confuse any “some” statements with absolute statements.

Wrong flaw. (B) errs by comparing items by focusing on irrelevant qualities. While people may own more books than televisions, that doesn’t imply that they spend more time reading those books than watching television. Also, books taking longer to complete has nothing to do with whether people watch TV or read more. Alternatively, the stimulus compares items (aspartame and sugar) by focusing on a quality that the two items share (sweetness).

The argument starts by comparing two things (Maria’s and Joe’s piggy banks) and explaining their different properties (Joe’s contains pennies and Maria’s contains nickels, which are worth more than pennies). It then moves to the conclusion (there’s more money in Maria’s piggy bank than Joe’s because Maria’s contains nickels and Joe’s contains pennies). This argument commits the same flaw as the stimulus of not accounting for the volume of the things it’s discussing. While nickels may be worth more than pennies, it’s possible that Joe has way more pennies in his piggy bank than Maria has nickels, and Joe, therefore, has more money in his piggy bank.

Wrong flaw. (D) errs by drawing a definitive conclusion based on preferences. While Stephanie may prefer hot weather more than Katherine, that tells us nothing about where either of them grew up. The stimulus, meanwhile, errs by not accounting for the volume of things it’s discussing.

Wrong flaw. (E) commits a belief v. facts flaw. While Guillermo’s drive to work may be shorter than Abdul’s, we have no clue how that affects Guillermo’s belief about the average commute for workers in the country. The stimulus, meanwhile, commits no belief v. facts flaw.