Mismatched premises and conclusion. Unlike the stimulus, which claims that something will happen a certain way now because it has always happened that way in the past, (A) makes a conclusion about one class of things (animals) based on a premise about a different class of things (plants).

Mismatched premises and conclusion. Unlike the stimulus, which claims that something will happen a certain way now because it has always happened that way in the past, (B) concludes that an actor won’t take a certain action (a fifth company won’t market a new food processing product) because other actors (four other companies) have already taken that action.

The argument proceeds by saying that, since something has always happened a certain way in the past (your sister has never won a chess tournament), it will happen the same way this time (though your sister is a good player, she won’t win this tournament).

Mismatched premises and conclusion. Unlike the stimulus, which claims that something will happen a certain way now because it has always happened that way in the past, (D) concludes that something will NOT happen a certain way (a virus won’t infect a population) because it did happen that way in the past (the virus already infected this population a decade ago).

Mismatched premises and conclusion. Unlike the stimulus, which claims that something will happen a certain way now because it has always happened that way in the past, (E) makes a conclusion that a certain result will come about for a group (the team will fail to live up to expectations) because that result has happened for each part of the group individually (each team member failed to live up to expectations).