Mismatched premises and conclusion. The stimulus operates by giving a condition in which a certain outcome can be met, then concludes that the fact that the outcome failed must have been because because the condition wasn’t met. (A) just says that there is a limited supply of something (fossil fuels) then concludes that using the resource faster will mean it’s gone sooner.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (B) compares two potential sources of satisfaction (doing a job well vs. doing a job you like merely adequately) and concludes that people seeking a certain outcome (happiness) should make a certain choice (the job you can do well). The stimulus does not involve this kind of net effect consideration, nor does it make a recommendation, so (B) does not parallel the stimulus.

Mismatched premises. The stimulus makes a generalization (that a species can survive a change if the change isn’t too rapid), while (C) is specifically speaking about “some” students.

Mismatched premises. The stimulus operates by providing a generalization (about species survival) to a specific scenario (about these woodland species); (E) is missing this generalization.