Mismatched premise and conclusion. The first premise is a conditional rule (If a company’s failure...), but the next premise is trying to trigger the sufficient in a particular situation (There was a broader...). It isn’t actually doing this though, because we don’t know that the collapse caused the ViqCo failure. Even if we did, the stimulus doesn’t confirm a sufficient to conclude anything; it negates the necessary to conclude the negation of the sufficient.

Mismatched premise and conclusion. The first premise is a conditional, but the next premise is negating the sufficient and using this to conclude that the necessary is also negated, whereas the stimulus negates the necessary to conclude the negation of the sufficient.

Also, negating a sufficient like (B) has doesn’t allow us to infer/conclude anything.

Mismatched premise and conclusion. As premise we have a conditional rule. But then, rather than include a negation of the necessary condition (e.g. it is totally impossible to say what they should’ve done differently) as additional premise, this jumps straight to the conclusion, which is another conditional statement (as opposed to the stimulus, where the conclusion is not a conditional statement).

Also, one person not being able to do something is not the same as it being impossible.

This invokes an unsaid principle (if a company’s failure was due to broader economic collapse, then it is not fair to blame the execs for the failure) and applies it to ViqCo to sub-conclude that the execs shouldn’t be blamed. Then (E) uses this as support to conclude that execs don’t deserve credit in the opposite situation (company thriving). This is different than the stimulus: the author sets a conditional rule and then negates the necessary to conclude that the sufficient will also not happen.