The stimulus tells us that a small car offers less protection than a large car, but, even so, a small car is better to drive because it is more maneuverable so accidents will be less likely.
So we are comparing one thing that is lacking some benefit to another, but yet we end up choosing the option that seems to be lacking due to a different benefit it holds.
(A) is incorrect because we are not comparing one thing to another and then still deciding on the option that seemed to be lacking initially. As such, this answer choice does not employ similar reasoning to the argument.
(B) is incorrect because its reasoning is not similar to that of the stimulus. It is not comparing two things and then deciding upon the one that seemed to be lacking initially.
(C) is incorrect because even though two things are being compared: vehicles built of lightweight materials and those built of heavy materials, the one that has the benefit is being chosen, whereas in the stimulus the one lacking the first benefit is chosen.
(D) is incorrect because it does not end up advocating for the option that seemed, at first, to be lacking. It says that a diet lacking in sugar and fat is bad. Therefore, choose a diet with moderate sugar and fat. This does not employ similar reasoning to our stimulus.
(E) is CORRECT because vigorous exercise is shown to bring down one's body fat, and that is bad because that person will have less fat than one who does not exercise vigorously to draw upon in the event of a wasting illness. However, it still advocates that exercising vigorously is better than not because doing so significantly decreases the chances of contracting a wasting illness. As such, this answer choice does employ similar reasoning to that found in the stimulus.
Hope that helps! Let me know if you have any other questions!
