This the wrong flaw. His father could have moved the keys since yesterday, but Albert’s testimony is still highly relevant here. By contrast, the stimulus commits the cookie-cutter flaw of appealing to an irrelevant authority.

This is the wrong flaw. (B) fails to consider that Gloria’s report might be false, but Gloria’s report would still be dispositive here. (I.e. if Gloria were telling the truth, this argument would be valid.) By contrast, the stimulus gives no reason to believe that Senator Armand’s expertise is relevant. Consequently, it commits the cookie-cutter flaw of appealing to an irrelevant authority.

This argument is not clearly flawed, unlike the stimulus. Dr. Treviso is an expert said to have knowledge about how long humans can hold their breath, which is clearly pertinent here. By contrast, the stimulus gives no reason to believe that Senator Armand’s expertise is relevant to the program in question. Consequently, by relying on her it commits the cookie-cutter flaw of appealing to an irrelevant authority.

This is the wrong flaw. (D) commits the cookie-cutter flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions. (”Robert is right” here means that Evelyn’s report is true.) By contrast, the stimulus commits the cookie-cutter flaw of appealing to an irrelevant authority.

(E) concludes that Moira’s report about Lee’s victory in the bicycle race cannot be accurate. The reasoning is that Lomas, a bicycle engineer, thinks Lee could not have won the race.

Like the stimulus, (E) commits the cookie-cutter flaw of appealing to an authority with irrelevant expertise. Just because Lomas is an expert bicycle engineer doesn’t mean he’s an expert on competitive cycling, or this race in particular.