(A) bases a crucial generalization on a very limited sample
--> Sampling is not the problem here.
(B) fails to consider the possibility that something that is unavoidable might nonetheless be undesirable
--> Raising taxes could be unavoidable or not unavoidable. Isn't inferable from the argument so cannot be chosen
(C) mistakes something that is sufficient to bring about a result for something that is necessary to bring about that result
--> Not entirely true as not electing Sherwood may or may not break the cycle of higher and higher taxes. In both cases (sufficient or necessary) the taxes may still rise.
So even with the exclusion (considered sufficient), the purpose that the tax cycle would break only with Sherwood's exclusion (necessary) may not be achieved
(D) makes a personal attack on someone who holds a certain view rather than addressing the reasonableness of that view
--> not relevant as there is no personal attack
(E) takes for granted that a characteristic of a group as a whole is shared by an individual member of that group
--> True, here the statement precisely confirms that the advertisement takes the council's opinion as Sherwood's
Option E