This is a valid argument based on the contrapositive.

chess club → NOT love to golf
Alex → loves to golf

Conclusion:

Alex → NOT in chess club

(Use the contrapositive of the first premise. If love to golf → NOT chess club.)

This isn’t a valid arguement, so it can’t parallel the valid argument in the stimulus. (B) isn’t valid because even if all happy people smile a lot and hardly ever cry, that doesn’t imply that a baby that smiles a lot and hardly ever cries must be happy. (If you think it does, you’re confusing sufficient and necessary conditions.) Also, being “contented” is different from being “happy.”

This isn’t a valid argument, so it can’t parallel the valid argument in the stimulus. The premises don’t tell us how we can prove that something “is not a good thing.” So there’s no way the conclusion, which asserts something is “not a good thing” can be proven true based on the premises. (The reasoning is cost/benefit analysis, not conditional. This is another way to eliminate (C).)

This is not a valid argument, so it can’t parallel the valid argument in the stimulus. Even if most dachshunds hunt poorly, that leaves open the possibility that there are some dachshunds that hunt well, and Sarah’s dog might be one of the dachshunds that hunt well.

This isn’t a valid argument, so it can’t parallel the valid argument in the stimulus. Although the premises allow us to conclude that there is “usually more traffic at this time of day,” that doesn’t imply that having little traffic should be “surprising.” We could conclude that having little traffic isn’t the norm, but we don’t know that something outside the norm should be “surprising.”