This doesn’t strengthen the argument, because we’re dealing with a situation in with there was no reasonable suspicion of a criminal act. We’re trying to prove that this makes a chase illegal, which in turn makes the evidence collected during the chase inadmissible.

Leads to wrong conclusion. (B) creates a requirement for a suspect to be able to legally flee from police. But that allows us to prove when the suspect’s flight is not legal. We’re trying to prove that the suspect’s flight WAS legal (or that the police’s chase was illegal). (B) structurally doesn’t allow us to do that. Also, we don’t know whether the suspect was actually not involved in a criminal act. We know there was no reasonable suspicion, but that doesn’t imply that the suspect was not actually involved in a criminal act.

(C), restated, asserts that if a person’s actions have NOT created a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act, then it’s illegal for police to give chase. The premises establish that the suspect’s actions did not give rise to a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act. So according to (C), then, the police’s chase was illegal.

(D) doesn’t strengthen the argument, because we already know from a premise that flight from police, by itself, does not create a reasonable suspicion of a criminal act. We’re trying to show that because there wasn’t reasonable suspicion, the chase of the suspect was illegal. Although we can infer from the premises that flight from police is not a criminal act, that does not prove that a chase of someone who flees without creating reasonable suspicion of a crime is illegal.

Leads to wrong conclusion. We’re trying to prove that the chase of the suspect was illegal. (E) is designed to lead to the conclusion that a police chase is legal. (If you’re picking (E), you probably think it implies that if a person’s action’s have NOT created reasonable suspicion of a criminal act, then the chase is illegal. But that’s not what it means; you’re confusing sufficient and necessary conditions.)