Explanation

In our approach, we can see that this argument is perfect for term matching. You might immediately sense the mismatch of terms, or you might have recognized the argument as one of those pseudo-syllogistic arguments, which are ripe for term matching.



Note that, even though we have list the conclusion on the right side in these term-matching tables, you may find it easier to identify the conclusion first and fill in those terms first, since the conclusion is identifiable by its opinion-charged language.

In this case, the prompt mentions "electronic communications" for the first time in the conclusion. The fact that the term doesn't show up in the evidence statements hints at a missing logical bridge--in this case, it must be between "electronic communications" and "homes." If those two things are equivalent in all ways relevant to the argument, then the conclusion is logically drawn.

Applying the filter: (A), (D), and (E) all show some promise. Choices (A) and (D) both generate new problems by introducing out-of-scope concepts, unmatched terms: "private" and "trustworthy." (E) is incredibly exact in equating "electronic communications" and "homes" for the purposes of the argument.

Logical proof: we can use the negation test. If (E) were false, then electronic communications would not be more nearly comparable to homes than to bodily persons. They could be more comparable to bodily persons, and then they would be searchable without a warrant, and the argument would fall apart. Hence the non-negated (E) is indeed a premise of the argument. The correct answer is (E).