Mismatched premises and conclusion. The stimulus operates by describing a problem and the two potential causes of the problem, then concludes with a solution that addresses both potential causes.

(A) does not follow this structure. Instead, (A) compares one characteristic of three different materials then concludes with a recommendation of certain materials for certain conditions.

The argument proceeds by describing a problem (furniture damage from cats) and the two potential causes of the problem (claws or teeth), then explaining a solution (providing cats with objects they will claw and bite) that addresses both potential causes.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. Unlike the stimulus, (C) does not outline two potential causes for a problem, then provide a conclusion with a solution that addresses both potential causes. Instead, (C) says that two different options (roads) are equal by a certain characteristic (length), then concludes that one could choose either option.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. The stimulus operates by describing a problem and the two potential causes of the problem, then concludes with a solution that addresses both potential causes.

(D) does introduce a problem (chemicals exploding when mixed), but it does not describe two potential causes of the problem, nor does it conclude with a solution that addresses two potential cauases.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (E) does not outline two potential causes for a problem, nor does it provide a conclusion with a solution that addresses both potential causes. Instead, (E) operates by eliminating options. (E) gives two options for an action, eliminates one of the options, then concludes by saying that the second option must be chosen.