Let's translate both statements.

Original: Any driver who is not arrested does not break the law.

not arrested → doesn't break law

Rewording: Every driver who breaks the law gets arrested.

breaks law → arrested

Is the rewording logically equivalent to the original? Yes. Take the contrapositive of the original by negating both sides and flipping the direction:

not arrested → doesn't break law

contrapositive: breaks law → arrested ✓

The rewording is just the contrapositive of the original, which means it's the same claim in different words. This matches the stimulus pattern exactly: take a conditional, restate it as a logically equivalent conditional, and let the rewording make the absurdity obvious.

Let's translate both statements.

Original: Any driver who is not arrested does not break the law.

not arrested → doesn't break law

Rewording: Every driver who gets arrested has broken the law.

arrested → broke law

Is the rewording logically equivalent to the original? No. It confuses sufficient and necessary conditions of the original statement. The rephrasing should have said "Every driver who has broken the law gets arrested."

Let's translate both statements.

Original: Every scientist who is supported by a government grant will be successful.

supported → successful

Rewording: No scientist who is successful is so without a government grant.

successful → supported

Is the rewording logically equivalent to the original? No. The rewording reverses the direction of the conditional. The original says support guarantees success. The rewording says success guarantees you had support. Those are different claims. The rephrasing should have said "Every scientist who isn't successful is not supported by a government grant."

Let's translate both statements.

Original: Every scientist who is supported by a government grant will be successful.

supported → successful

Rewording: No scientist lacking governmental support will be successful.

not supported (lacking support) → not successful

Is the rewording logically equivalent to the original? It might look like it at first, because both sides got negated. But negating both sides without flipping the direction does not produce a contrapositive. The contrapositive negates both sides and flips the arrow. (D) only negates both sides. That's the difference. The original says that having support guarantees success; (D)'s rewording says that lacking support guarantees no success. Those aren't the same thing. A scientist could lack a government grant and still succeed.

Let's translate both statements.

Original: Every scientist who has been supported by a government grant will be successful.

supported → successful

Rewording: No scientist is allowed to do research without a government grant.

does research → has government grant

The rewording introduces an entirely new concept ("allowed to do research") that has nothing to do with the original claim about success. The original is about support implying success. The rewording is about research requiring a grant. These aren't two ways of saying the same thing.