Wrong flaw. This isn’t a perfect argument, because the premises don’t establish that the benefits of allowing snacks (improved nutrition) outweigh the costs (maybe the kids would have sugar crashes throughout the day!) However, it isn’t flawed in the same way the stimulus is: it doesn’t use a flawed analogy (or any analogy at all) to reach its conclusion.

Wrong flaw. This isn’t valid (maybe employees with colds are allowed to stay home to keep people from getting sick, not because of productivity), but it’s structured differently. Look at the arguments’ second premises: The politician says a motorcycle with a seatbelt is more dangerous than a car without one; (B) says stressed, healthy employees can be less productive than unstressed employees with colds. The politician compares the allegedly analogous scenario (seatbelt on a motorcycle) with the scenario she advocates for (no seatbelt in a car), while (B)’s premise doesn’t mention either of its scenarios (time off with a bad cold or time off when stressed).

The author uses the analogy of high cliffs to conclude that it should be legal to stand while riding roller coasters. She uses two premises to support this analogy:

People are allowed to stand at the edges of high cliffs
Sitting at the edge of a high cliff is more dangerous than standing while riding a roller coaster

Like the politician, (C) fails to establish that the analogy is analogous enough—maybe sitting at the edge of a high cliff is more dangerous than standing, but standing on a roller coaster is more dangerous than sitting!

Wrong flaw. This isn’t valid (maybe there are differences between smoking and pollution that aren’t accounted for), but it’s structured differently. The stimulus argues that something should be legal because it is legal in a different context; by contrast, (D) argues that something should be illegal because something else should also be illegal.

Wrong flaw. This isn’t a valid argument (just because Vanessa lets her dog roam her yard without a leash doesn’t mean she should, and that doesn’t mean she should do so in the park!) but it isn’t structured like the stimulus. Unlike the stimulus, (E) does not have a comparative premise.