This is the wrong flaw. (A) assumes without justification that, if one person can’t solve a problem, no other individual could. But the flaw in the stimulus is conflating properties of a part with properties of the whole.

This is the wrong flaw. (B) fails to consider that, although Hank hasn’t yet won a race this season, he could still help the team win. (For example, perhaps there haven’t been many races and he’s usually finished in second place.) Its conclusion is about Hank’s contribution to the team, not about the team as a whole. By contrast, the flaw in the stimulus is conflating properties of a part with properties of the whole.

If this argument is flawed, it’s the wrong flaw. (C) starts with a premise about individual persons, and moves to a conclusion about all individual persons. Although this is a generalization, the argument is about the same subject: the actions of individuals. By contrast, the flaw in the stimulus is conflating properties of a part with properties of the whole.

(D) argues that the club, collectively, can’t afford tents. The support is that no individual member can afford a tent. On this basis, (D) concludes that it’s pointless to ask the club to purchase tents.

Like the stimulus, this erroneously conflates properties of individual parts with properties of the whole. Even if no individual can afford a tent, by splitting the cost the club as a whole might be able to afford tents.

There’s no clear flaw in this argument. If it is possible for everyone in society to be mistaken, agreeing with everyone in society doesn’t guarantee that you’re correct.