The fact that this argument starts with an "all" statement, indicating it uses conditional logic rather than set logic, should be a tip-off that this answer choice isn't what we're looking for. There's no flaw here: if all weasels are carnivores, and all carnivores are nonherbivores, then it follows that at least some (in fact, all) weasels are nonherbivores.

Wrong flaw. Remember that the flawed pattern of the stimulus: the premises established that two groups were each subsets of a larger group, and the argument wrongly concluded that those two groups must overlap. This answer choice gives us two premises about different groups, without telling us that they are subsets of a larger group, and then draws a conclusion about some larger group ("people" in general) with respect to certain traits of the first two groups, saints and moralists.

More abstractly, the flawed pattern we saw in the stimulus was "some A are B," "most B are C," therefore "some A are C." This argument runs: "most A are B" (most moralists are not courageous enough to act according to their principles); "most C are D" (most saints are unable to articulate the principles of their actions); therefore "most E can act like neither A or C" (most people can't act like saints or speak like moralists). Though this conclusion is extremely flawed — is acting like a saint or moralist the same as being one? — this is not what we're looking for.

This is the correct answer choice. The premises tell us that "some painters are musicians" and "some musicians are dancers." So we know that "painters" and "dancers" are both subgroups of "musicians," but we don't know that these subgroups overlap, as the argument concludes they do. This is the same pattern as in the stimulus.

The fact that this argument relies entirely on conditional rather than set logic should be a tip-off that this isn't what we're looking for. In any case, there's no flaw here. The premises boil down to stating that autonomy is necessary for freedom, and freedom is necessary for virtue. It follows that autonomy is necessary for virtue, as the conclusion states.

This might be tempting, especially since the language in the conclusion ("at least one") mirrors what we see in the stimulus. But notice, first, that one of the premises is a conditional statementno: one who favors a total ban is opposed to stiffer tariffs. The argument in the stimulus didn't rely on any conditional "all" or "none" statements, so this fact alone should make us suspicious of this answer choice.

And in fact, there's no flaw here. The second premise, "no one who favors a ban is opposed to stiffer tariffs," translates simply to "all those who favor a ban are not opposed to stiffer tariffs." Then, since we already know that "most" voters favor a total ban, it certainly follows that at least one voter is not opposed to stiffer tariffs.