Wrong flaw. It’s unclear what (A) means by a storm having wind speeds at “about that level”, but such a storm could likely still meet the criteria to be considered a hurricane. Regardless, this doesn’t parallel the stimulus since the stimulus cites a negative correlation as evidence.

Wrong flaw. This assumes that, because eating one food was sufficient for a particular outcome (botulism), other foods must also lead to that outcome. The stimulus cites a negative correlation as evidence—not an “all” statement.

Wrong flaw. This assumes that a correlation observed in rats would also be observed in humans. The stimulus commits a mistaken reversal—it doesn’t assume an observed correlation will also occur in a different population.

Wrong flaw. This assumes because one cause can produce an effect (diligent training can enable proficiency at poker), that there are no other causing contributing to a different effect (success at poker). The argument mistakenly reverses a correlation—it doesn’t assume an effect has only one cause.

This argument commits a mistaken reversal. It assumes that because engines that have their oil changed regularly are less likely to have problems, any engine that has problems probably doesn’t have its oil regularly changed. This conclusion wouldn’t follow if a vast majority of all engines have their oil regularly changed.