How will the right answer fit in terms of support and conclusion?

Only the right answer will use the same kind of support and the same kind of conclusion that the passage uses, and thus also have the same flaw.

Highlight the main conclusion in the passage, if there is one:

there is no such thing as a multiple personality disorder

A psychiatrist argued that [CONCLUSION] on the grounds that [SUPPORT].

Someone says a thing can’t be, because that person has never “encountered” it. A lot of people find it helpful to turn these arguments into generic paraphrases like I did there. In any case, everything in the right answer will map to that structure.

Map the wording of the answers to the wording of the passage:

(A) …concluded that colds are seldom fatal…

The passage says “no such thing”, but that’s not the same as “seldom”, which means the thing sometimes does happen.

(B) …so there are probably no groundhogs…

The psychiatrist didn’t leave any wiggle room. There’s no “probably” or any similar term in the passage.

(C) …rarely had an effect…, therapy was not warranted.

None of this maps, since “rarely” isn’t the same as “no such thing”. The passage also isn’t justifying anything, so “warranted” doesn’t map to anything in the argument either.

(D) …she would probably continue…

This is wrong all over the place too, but “probably” is probably the easiest wording to spot that doesn’t align with the psychiatrist’s conclusion.

(E) …never spotted a deer in his area…there are no deer in the area.

This maps to the conclusion that “there is no such thing” and to the support that “she had never encountered one”. The only difference is that this answer is “in the area”, but no doubt this one still “closely parallels” the passage better than the other four.

(E) is the correct answer.