Mismatched premise. (A) supports the conclusion by creating a domino effect of unwanted outcomes. The stimulus supports its conclusion by showing that two possible outcomes from an action each lead to an unfavorable consequence.

Mismatched premise. (B) has a conclusion recommending against an action, like the stimulus, but the stimulus has two options (success or failure) that each lead to an unfavorable/possible unfavorable consequence. (B) has two options, but they are not necessarily opposites (most will not take it seriously vs. success), and only the success option leads to something else.

Mismatched premise. (C) has a conclusion recommending against an action, like the stimulus, but it supports this by claiming the benefits of following the recommendation (don’t sell). The stimulus’ support comes from the consequences of not following the recommendation.

The argument concludes that an action should not happen (submit paper). The consultant supports this by showing that the two possible outcomes from the action (paper is accepted or rejected) both lead to unfavorable consequence (possibly can’t meet deadline or lose confidence).

Mismatched premises. (E) is supporting the conclusion by contrasting a benefit of the recommendation (probably can negotiate) with a downside of not following the recommendation (risks not being able to go). The stimulus is supporting its conclusion by showing that two possible outcomes from an action both lead to unfavorable consequence.