The argument explains the claim (the accident was on Aylmer Street) of an entity (the news), describes what would’ve happened (Morgan couldn’t have witnessed the accident from his kitchen window) if the claim was true, then concludes that the claim (that Morgan witnessed the accident from his kitchen window) of another entity (the newspaper) must be untrue. This commits the same flaw as the stimulus of favoring one possibility over an equally likely possibility without any reasoning. (A) provides no evidence that the news’ claim was any more credible than the newspaper’s claim, so it’s flawed to conclude that the newspaper was wrong.

No flaw. Determining which party to blame for an issue is subjective, so the author is justified in deciding who he thinks is to blame for an issue.

Wrong flaw. (C) errs by acting as if Kapoor’s and Galindo’s claims can’t both be true. Even if the disposal site is on unsuitable land, the site may not pose an imminent danger to the community. The hazardous waste may just be an imminent danger to the site it’s on. The stimulus, meanwhile, errs because it favors one claim over another without any support for either.

Wrong flaw. (D) errs by believing the claim (that Harris favors the interest of property developers) of a group (Harris’s political rivals) to be true, without any evidence, even though that group has incentives to lie. Harris’s political rivals could be slandering Harris to try to prevent her from being elected. The stimulus, meanwhile, errs because it favors one claim over another without any evidence to support either claim.

Wrong flaw. (E) errs by acting as if the government’s figures can’t be compatible with the fact that the region lost thousands of manufacturing jobs in the last six months. It’s entirely possible that both the regional unemployment rate declined and the region lost thousands of jobs in the same period. The stimulus, alternatively, errs by favoring one claim over another without any evidence to support either claim.