Mismatched conclusion. While the stimulus discusses how a byproduct of a specific action helps meet the original objective, (A) discusses how a specific action (improving the service warranty in order to increase market share) has negative impacts elsewhere (decrease in profits).

Mismatched premises and conclusion. The stimulus describes how a certain course of action meets its objective. In (B), the manager posits a theory to explain the result of an action. (B) just provides speculation for an explanation of a result (higher revenue); there is no mention of the manager’s original objective or the byproduct of the original action.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. The stimulus describes how the byproduct of a specific action helps meet the original objective. Instead, (C) describes how a certain course of action (raising road taxes) is unable to achieve an objective (encouraging mass transit use), because the revenues brought in by the taxes do not offset the costs of mass transit.

Mismatched premises. In the stimulus, the cost and the benefit are both effects that are caused by the action. In (D), the cost is the cause, and the benefit is the effect. In (D), the action (spending more on maintenance) directly achieves the goal (increased spending attracts patrons, who spend enough money to make up for the maintenance costs).

The argument considers a possible course of action (raising library fees to raise money for book repair) and reveals how a byproduct of the action helps meet the original objective. While the action appears to cause losses (higher fees mean fewer patrons, meaning less money available for book repair), the byproduct of the action is actually beneficial (fewer attendees means less wear on the books).