A Famous Editor: American writers today lack skills that were common among American writers of preceding centuries. I believe this because my analysis of 100 books, 50 old and 50 contemporary, demonstrates convincingly that none of the contemporary writings are executed as skillfully as the older writings.

Which of the following points to the most serious logical flaw in the Editor’s argument?

1) There could be criteria other than the technical skill of the writer by which to evaluate a book.
2) The particular methods currently used by American writers could require less literary skill than do methods used by writers in other parts of the world.
3) The editors fame could cause people to accept the editors thesis even without their reading the books to consider the validity of his thesis.
4) An individual who was not familiar with the language of literary criticism might not be convinced by the editors analysis of the 100 books
5) The books chosen for analysis could be those that most support his thesis.

Can someone tell me why E is correct. How to approach these kind of questions