Wrong flaw. This isn’t a valid argument, because it’s theoretically possible that a fair coin could come up heads 100 times in a row. But unlike the stimulus, (A) doesn’t make a prediction about the future based on an erroneous understanding of averages.

Adult male baboons in a group of 10 have an average chance of 1 in 10 of ascending to dominance. Like the stimulus, the author uses an average to make a prediction about an individual: if a baboon hasn’t ascended in the past 10 years, he’s probably due for dominance. But that’s a misunderstanding of averages. Maybe one baboon has a 91% chance of ascending to dominance and the 9 other baboons each have a 1% chance—the average chance is still 1 in 10, but you’d want to put your money on the 91% baboon!

Wrong flaw. This isn’t a valid argument, because we don’t know much about Marty—maybe he’s a reckless tricycle rider with a higher than average chance of being in a traffic accident, or maybe he never leaves the house and has a 0% chance! Regardless, (C) doesn’t commit the same flaw as the stimulus, which assumes that it’s possible to combine historical data about an individual with average statistics about a group to make predictions about the individual’s future.

No flaw. This is a valid argument! If the average adolescent who works full-time makes around 76 cents for every dollar a fully employed adult makes, and the average adolescent who works part-time makes less than the average adolescent who works full-time, then the average adolescent who works part-time must make less than the average employed adult (assuming that the adult’s employment is full-time).

Wrong flaw. While we can’t validly conclude that the grandmaster will maintain the same likelihood he has been exhibiting of responding to move X with move Y, (D) doesn’t commit the same flaw as the stimulus, which assumes that it’s possible to combine historical data about an individual with average statistics about a group to make predictions about the individual’s future.