(A) fails because it affirms one of the conditions (✅completed entry form) but negates the other (❌submitted by deadline). I’ll flesh out the full mismatch, though. Let’s start with the first premise, which is easier to match up to the stimulus if we use the contrapositive:

Premise: Accepted → Deadline and Complete
Premise (CP): /Complete or /Deadline → /Accepted

See? That version matches up with the stimulus’ Premise 1+2 quite well.

Now the conclusion, though, which isn’t the inverse of the premise because it doesn’t negate all the terms. Mismatches are bolded:

Conclusion: Complete and /Deadline → /Accepted

(A)’s logic is actually valid, albeit a bit messy. Failing to meet the deadline suffices to tank an entry, so the conclusion follows whether the entry form is complete or not.

(B) is wrong because its conclusion doesn’t negate the premise’s sufficient condition – its argument is flawed in a different way.

On your shallow dip, (B) should fail immediately because its first premise joins the two sufficient conditions with an and instead of an or:

Premise 1: Organized and Good Cook → Delicious

That’s enough, but another red flag comes when its second premise negates the necessary condition, which is the beginning of a potentially valid line of reasoning.

Premise 2: /Delicious

That’s just a bunch of mismatchy stuff up front. To trace out (B)’s actual flaw, though, here’s (B)’s actual conclusion compared to the valid one it could draw.

Conclusion: /Organized
Valid: /Organized or /Good Cook

The meal wasn’t delicious, so Jon must have failed to meet one of the conditions that would have guaranteed deliciousness. But maybe he’s organized and just sucks at cooking.

(C) matches the stimulus’ whole logical structure. Here it is in English:

Premise: If Bob does start exercising daily, or if he does quit smoking, his fitness level will improve.
________
Conclusion: If he doesn’t exercise daily and he doesn’t quit smoking, his fitness level won’t improve.

Here’s the formal logic:

Premise 1: Exercise → Fitness↑
Premise 2: Quit → Fitness↑
Premise 1+2: Exercise or Quit → Fitness↑
________
Conclusion: /Exercise and /Quit → /Fitness↑

(C)’s conclusion confuses sufficiency and necessity by negating the premise’s sufficient condition and concluding the necessary condition must not be true. Its conclusion is the inverse of Premise 1+2.

(D) fails when it affirms one of our sufficient conditions. Mismatch in bold:

Premise 1+2: /Permit or Expired → Ticket
Premise 2: Expired

To match, (D) needs to negate both sufficient conditions.

Whether you’re diagramming or not, (E) should fail your shallow dip when it brings in most and some claims, which are quantifier mismatches.

Here’s the diagram just for fun:

Premise 1: Classes –most→ Basic
Premise 2: Classes –some– Advanced
________
Conclusion: Classes and Advanced → Basic

Taking (E) on its own merits, I guess it’s flawed because it assumes that if a dog can do advanced tricks, it can do basic ones. But WHATEVER – (E)’s specific flaw doesn’t matter. All that matters is it doesn’t match the stimulus.