Mismatched premise and conclusion. The first premise (If articles use...) is fine. But the next premise needs to be a set relationship, and instead (A) gives a conditional (if academic work, then uses specialized terminology). Then, (A) concludes a conditional (if academic work, then not widely read). The stimulus has a set relationship in one of the premises and in the conclusion.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (B) gives a conditional without two elements in the sufficient, whereas the stimulus combines two factors (popular and groundbreaking. Then, (B) gives a set relationship (some students get high grades), and concludes that, since one part of that relationship is sometimes occurring, so is the other part in those instances. However, the stimulus concludes that two elements do not always accompany each other, i.e. some popular shows are not groundbreaking.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (D) gives a conditional without two elements in the sufficient, whereas the stimulus combines two factors (popular + groundbreaking). Then, (D) gives another conditional whereas the stimulus gives a set relationship. This conclusion is also a conditional, but the stimulus’ conclusion is a set relationship.

Mismatched premise and conclusion. The first premise is good, but the next premise (some books are not worth reading) is dealing only in the two traits that were combined in the sufficient condition of the first premise (book, worth reading). The stimulus uses a set relationship that deals with one of the two traits and the necessary of the first premise (not all popular shows are critically acclaimed).

The conclusion of (E) uses the necessary condition (worth buying), but it should be about the two traits in the sufficient condition.