Only includes one of the flaws. This makes the part vs. whole error from the stimulus—it assumes that, because Lewis is a better baker than Stockman overall, a specific cake made by Lewis must be better than most of Stockman’s cakes (but what if Lewis is having an off day?!) But it doesn’t commit the second flaw from the stimulus: it doesn’t go so far as to say that Lewis’ cake is actually good.

Because Porter’s new book is better than her previous books, the author concludes that a given poem from Porter’s new book must be good. This commits both the cookie-cutter flaws from the stimulus: Part vs. whole: The author erroneously assumes that, because Porter’s new book is better than her previous ones overall, an individual poem from her new book must be better.
Relative vs. absolute: The author assumes that a relative relationship (Porter’s new book is better than her others) proves an absolute quality (Porter’s new book is good).

Wrong flaw. This argument does contain a relative vs. absolute flaw, but it is the reverse of the structure in the stimulus: in (C), the absolute statement is a premise and the relative is the conclusion; in the stimulus, the opposite is true. Furthermore, (C) does not contain a part vs. whole flaw, like the stimulus does.

Only includes one of the flaws. This argument commits the relative vs. absolute flaw from the stimulus: just because Shield’s first novel is more complex than her previous novels doesn’t mean it’s actually complex! But (D) doesn’t contain a part vs. whole flaw, as the stimulus does.

Only includes one of the flaws. This argument does commit a part vs. whole flaw, in that it assumes that one specific math test will be harder than one specific history test just because math is harder than history overall. However, it doesn’t make a relative vs. absolute error: it compares two relative claims, but never makes an absolute claim.