Mismatched premises and conclusion. The stimulus balances different quantities of the same characteristic (agricultural productivity) in different areas; (A) balances the importance of two different characteristics (health and taste).

The conclusion of the stimulus specifically discusses the net impact of an action (building a dam) on a quantity (agricultural productivity), while the conclusion of (A) is about what is “better” to do.

Mismatched premises. The stimulus says that building the dam would increase agricultural productivity in one area but reduce it in another area; (B) says that increasing the price of calls will discourage private callers, but it does not say how increasing the price will impact the amount of calls made by businesses. Thus, we don’t know the net effect of the price change on company profits.

The argument considers a possible course of action (building a new highway) and weighs the net effect of how that action would affect a certain objective (reducing commuting time for suburban commuters). Because the losses would. be greater than the gains, the argument concludes that taking the action would provide no net gain for that objective.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. The stimulus balances different quantities of the same characteristic (agricultural productivity) in different areas; (D) sets out to give a recommendation between two treatment options (antibiotics and rest).

The conclusion of the stimulus specifically discusses the net impact of an action (building a dam) on a quantity (agricultural productivity), while the conclusion of (D) is about what is “better” to do.

Mismatched conclusion. (E) makes a conclusion about which type of garden will benefit from the use of a certain type of chemical, while the stimulus makes a conclusion about the net effect of an action (building a dam) on a quantity (agricultural productivity).