A psychiatrist argued that there is no such thing as a multiple person

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A- Eliminated because the person makes assumption on the nature of a disease instead of making assumption on its existence (as in the question).

B - Eliminated because assumption is based on other peoples observation instead of his/her own.

C-Eliminated because again nature/effectiveness of a therapy is discussed.

D-Eliminated because it is a prediction on a persons action -not about the existence of something.

E - Properly compares individual's assumption based on his own observation - Correct

As I said above, some answers are close to being right, and A is one of those. But in A, the doctor still allows for the possibility that colds might sometimes be fatal. The original argument doesn't do that. In the original argument that we're trying to parallel, the psychiatrist says multiple personality disorder does not exist because she has never seen it. The psychiatrist does not say "multiple personality disorder is pretty rare because I've never seen it" (if it said that, A would be a great answer).

method:
use of evidence: no evidence support "A" -> NO "A"
A no evidence support "A" -> seldom "A"
B no evidence support "A" -> probably NO "A"
C some evidence -> (i dont care)
D This is a timeshift flaw of reasoning, not evidence
E finally: no evidence support "A" -> NO "A" --> correct answer

A psychiatrist argued that there is no such thing as a multiple personality disorder on the grounds that in all her years of clinical practice, she had never encountered one case of this type.

Which one of the following most closely parallels the questionable reasoning cited above?

A. Anton concluded that colds are seldom fatal on the grounds that in all his years of clinical practice, he never had a patient who died of a cold.

B. Lyla said that no one in the area has seen a groundhog and so there are probably no groundhogs in the area.

C. Sauda argued that because therapy rarely had an effect on her patient's type of disorder, therapy was not warranted.

D. Thomas argued that because Natasha has driven her car to work every day since she bought it, she would probably continue to drive her car to work

E. Jerod had never spotted a deer in his area and concluded from this that there are no deer in the area.

Tough as well as easy at the same time, if someone spots the wording.
Logic wise each of them looks similar but the problem lies in the wording used.

See the highlighted text.

Answer E.