(A) exhibits valid reasoning – it’s the contrapositive argument. Here’s the diagram, with mismatches in bold:

(A)
P1: Good Story → Praise → Do Well BO
P2: /Do Well BO
________
Con: /Good Story

Template
P1: A → B → C
P2: /A
________
Con: /C

(B) matches the stimulus. It forms a 3-part conditional chain, negates the sufficient condition, and concludes the necessary condition can’t happen:

(B)
P1: Hella Stars → Success BO → Long Run
P2: /Hella Stars
________
Con: /Long Run

Template
P1: A → B → C
P2: /A
________
Con: /C

If you’ve diagrammed the stimulus and you’re well versed in your argument forms, (C) should be the primary contender – it also confuses sufficiency and necessity:

(C)
P1: Talented → Praised → Video
P2: Video
________
Con: Talented

Template
P1: A → B → C
P2: /A
________
Con: /C

But while (B) and the stimulus deny the sufficient condition, (C) affirms the necessary condition (its second premise is “YES Video” instead of “NO Talented”).

(C) is logically equivalent both to the stimulus and to (B). You just have to take the contrapositive of (C)’s chain and boom you’re denying the sufficient condition all of a sudden. But in this question, where we’re selecting the most similar pattern of reasoning, the distinction between affirming the necessary and denying the sufficient is the difference-maker.

I’ll get to the nuance in a sec, but first you gotta look at this super-generous translation of (D) and acknowledge that even this doesn’t fit the template. The primary mismatch is in bold:

(D)
P1: BO Success → Star Nom → Video
P2: /Star Nom
________
Con: /Video

Template
P1: A → B → C
P2: /A
________
Con: /C

At its very best, (D) sets up a conditional chain and denies the middle term instead of the first term. So sure, on this very generous translation, (D) denies a sufficient condition just like the stimulus does. But it also cuts out an entire inference.

That’s a very strong reason to dislike (D).

Separately, you may have noticed that (D) assumes that nominated for an award means receives an award. That's unreasonable. So you cannot chain up these two conditionals.

(E) exhibits valid reasoning – it’s a straightforward conditional chain. Here’s the diagram, with mismatches in bold:

(E)
P1: $$$ → Promoted → All Over
P2: $$$
________
Con: All Over

Template
P1: A → B → C
P2: /A
________
Con: /C