P: If everyone else refrains from littering, then Tanya would refrain from littering. P: All of Tanya's friends refrain from littering. C: Tanya refrains from littering.
The flaw here is that "all of Tanya's friends" is not equal to "everyone else." In other words, the passage uses a small subset of a larger population to reach its conclusion even though the subset likely differs from the larger population.
Now let's look at (E):
P: If all of the restaurant's customers like its food, then the restaurant is exceptional. P: Everyone whom Sherryl consulted liked the food at Chez Louis. C: Chez Louis is an exceptional restaurant.
The flaw here is that "everyone whom Sherryl consulted" is not equal to "all of the restaurant's customers." As in the passage, we see a small subset of a larger population being used to make a conclusion despite the fact that the subset is likely unrepresentative of the entire population. Since this is a Flawed Parallel Reasoning question and (E) makes the same logical error as the passage does, (E) is correct.
Does that make sense? Please let us know if you have any other questions!
