People who take what others regard as a ridiculous position should not bother to say, “I mean every word!” For either their position truly is ridiculous, in which case insisting that they are serious about it only exposes them to deeper embarrassment, or else their position has merit, in which case they should meet disbelief with rational argument rather than with assurances of their sincerity.
Which one of the following arguments is most similar in its reasoning to the argument above?
(A) A practice that has been denounced as poor practice should not be defended on the grounds that “this is how we have always done it.” If the practice is a poor one, so much the worse that it has been extensively used; if it is not poor one, there must be a better reason for engaging in it than inertia.
(B) People who are asked why they eat some of the unusual foods they eat should not answer, “because that is what I like.” This sort of answer will sound either naive or evasive and thus will satisfy no one.
(C) People whose taste in clothes is being criticized should not replay, “Every penny I spent on these clothes I earned honestly.” For the issue raise by the critics is not how the money was come by but rather whether it was spent wisely.
(D) Scholars who champion unpopular new theories should not assume that the widespread rejection of their ideas shows that they “must be on the right track.” The truth is that few theories of any consequence are either wholly right or wholly wrong and thus there is no substitute for patient works in ascertaining which parts are right.
(E) People who set themselves goals that others denounce as overly ambitious do little to silence their critics if they say, “I can accomplish this if anyone can.” Rather, those people should either admit that their critics are right or not dignify the criticism with any reply.

Here is my reasoning... The stimulus takes two stances: ridiculous or meritorious. Thus the "parallel" answer should have two POVs too.
A) A practice that has been denounced as poor practice should not be defended on the grounds that “this is how we have always done it.” If the practice is a poor one, so much the worse that it has been extensively used; if it is not poor one, there must be a better reason for engaging in it than inertia. establishes two views but the structure is different
(B) People who are asked why they eat some of the unusual foods they eat should not answer, “because that is what I like.” This sort of answer will sound either naive or evasive and thus will satisfy no one. establishes one opinion
(C) People whose taste in clothes is being criticized should not replay, “Every penny I spent on these clothes I earned honestly.” For the issue raise by the critics is not how the money was come by but rather whether it was spent wisely.establishes one opinion
(D) Scholars who champion unpopular new theories should not assume that the widespread rejection of their ideas shows that they “must be on the right track.” The truth is that few theories of any consequence are either wholly right or wholly wrong and thus there is no substitute for patient works in ascertaining which parts are right. no view established
(E) People who set themselves goals that others denounce as overly ambitious do little to silence their critics if they say, “I can accomplish this if anyone can.” Rather, those people should either admit that their critics are right or not dignify the criticism with any reply. two views with similar structure as the stimulus

I'd take E for an answer.

I believe that this type of questions is rare as I have only found them in ARCO's Master the GMAT (something that I amazed at being the crappy ref it is). Kaplan does not cover "parallel" CR questions...as far as I know. IMO, this questions cannot be paraphrased ahead of reading the answers...thus, making them tough ones.

marcodonzelli
Any input as to why A?
_________________

Failure is not an option.

I would go with A here as well.

Needs to follow the same structure, respond to both if it is better, and if it is worse.