This is not a valid argument, so it can’t be parallel to the valid argument in the stimulus. (A) isn’t valid because the people who will be fired do not have to include anyone who worked in this department.

This is a valid argument, but it’s not based on the combination of “some” and “no.” Rather, it’s based on the combination of “some” and “all.” Ordinarily this wouldn’t make a difference, but there’s another answer that’s a closer match. Another way to think about this answer is that it doesn’t involve use of a contrapositive, whereas the argument in the stimulus does involve the contrapositive inference.

This is a valid argument based on the combination of “some” and “no.”

people polled ←some→ live outside
vote in city election → NOT live outside

Conclusion:

people polled ←some→ NOT vote in city election

Although this is a valid argument, this doesn’t involve a combination of “some” and “no.” The premises look like this:

original planners → responsible
original planners → NOT admit responsibility

This does not match the premise structure in the stimulus.

This isn’t valid, so it can’t be parallel to the argument in the stimulus. The argument would have been valid if it had concluded that some members of the Liberal party are NOT members of the city council.