Correct. This follows the structure we saw in the stimulus: all A are C (all green plants take in carbon dioxide and release oxygen), therefore all B are C (all grass does the same thing). The assumption is that B is a subcategory of A: grass is a green plant.

Incorrect. This follows a different structure than what we saw in the stimulus. This says that some A are C:

red butterfly ←s→ poisonous to birds

Then it concludes that one particular member of group A must be C: one particular red butterfly is poisonous to birds. But we don't know that this particular butterfly is part of the subgroup of red butterflies that are poisonous to birds. Remember that the assumption embedded in the stimulus was that some group B was a subgroup of A. In this case, we aren't dealing with the same kind of logic. We're going from a premise about one subgroup ("some") of a larger set A (red butterflies) to an unsupported conclusion about a specific member of A (one red butterfly).

Incorrect. This is basically a sufficiency/necessity confusion. Just because books "can" provide knowledge of the empirical world doesn't mean any particular book must provide knowledge about the empirical world. This is a different structure than the stimulus follows.

Incorrect. This answer choice is tricky because it is structured similarly to the stimulus. All A are C (all films directed by Fassbender have been seen by Deirdre), therefore, one particular member of A must be C (a specific film by Fassbender has been seen by Deirdre). The problem is that we aren't dealing with another group, "B", that is assumed to be a subgroup of A. Instead, we're dealing with a specific item, this particular movie, which we are explicitly told is a member of A. So this is a different structure than the stimulus follows.

Incorrect. This is an argument about probability: because all members of a group have a high chance of something, one particular member of that group has likely experienced that thing at some point. This is a different structure from the stimulus, which relies on conditional logic and on the assumption that some group B is a subcategory of a larger group A, not on any predictions about an individual whom we are explicitly told is a member of A.