This question could be rewritten to make it more similar to the GMAC's.
TYPE: FLAW IN REASONING
Pre-thinking: We must show that the author's conclusion that the "bottle has been mislabeled" has a flaw. Even though it is a fact that, when he/she poured the liquid contained in the bottle on baking soda, the mixture did not "fizz".(A) ignores the possibility that the bottle contained an acidic liquid other than vinegar
----- This consideration was not ignored. In fact, this is the consideration taken to come up with the conclusion that the bottle is mislabeled. SO the author is IN FACT thinking that whatever was inside the bottle IS NOT vinegar. (B) fails to exclude an alternative explanation for the observed effect
------- CORRECT. The author does not consider that due to some particular circumstances the "fizzing effect" did not occur. For example, the vinegar could have been past its expiration date, or the baking soda could have been moist, or any other event that would explain the failure to "fizz". In short, as the author did not have a scientific approach (I.e. To make this experiment in a laboratory), then his conclusion is too harsh.
(C) depends on the use of the imprecise term “fizz”
------ The term is imprecise, but understandable. (D) does not take into account the fact that scientific principles can be definitively tested only under controlled laboratory conditions
----- Not quite. author's mistake is to rush to come to a conclusion. Additionally, he is not trying to prove a "scientific principle", but only whether the bottle contains vinegar or not. (E) assumes that the fact of a labeling error is proof of an intention to deceive
----- author does not make an argument about the intention to deceive. _________________
GMAT Expert at LIBERTY TEST PREP