(A) uses a philosophically distinct logical structure called “inductive reasoning,” which just means taking a collection of observed facts (look at all these white swans) and forming a general conclusion (I bet all swans are white). Arguments predicting future outcomes are categorized differently, and that’s partly what the testwriters had in mind when writing this answer choice.

But whatever. (A) also features a mismatch in the likelihood asserted by its conclusion. The stimulus says the station will not win, while (A) concludes all swans are probably white. Mismatches in likelihood matter a lot in Parallel questions.

(B) arguably survives the shallow dip. It makes a prediction about the future based on facts about the past, and our stimulus does both those things.

But (B)’s inference is blatantly unreasonable. Thinking a fair coin will come up heads because it has done so before is literally a textbook statistical fallacy. That goes well beyond any weakness our stimulus has as a result of trying to predict the future.

Also, and more concretely, (B) features a mismatch in the likelihood asserted by its conclusion. The stimulus says the station will not win, while (B) concludes the next flip will probably be heads. Mismatches in likelihood matter a lot in Parallel questions.

(C) displays perfectly straightforward, valid reasoning. It doesn’t try to predict the future, it just establishes a rule (all lions are mammals), then applies that rule to an individual (Leo is a lion, so he’s a mammal too).

This makes a firm prediction about the future based on reasonable (or at least not blatantly unreasonable) facts about the past. (D)’s conclusion matches the certainty featured in the stimulus (“they will be lower”), and because stock prices (unlike the fair coin from (B)) fluctuate according to the fickle whims of millions of human investors, it’s at least mildly reasonable to believe they follow stable patterns.

If you’re not convinced that the logic in (D) is more reasonable than the logic in (B), which is perhaps fair given that “past performance is not indicative of future results” is an extremely common mantra in the business world, note that the difference in likelihood alone suffices to distinguish (D) from both (A) and (B).

Unlike our stimulus, (E) displays valid reasoning. Seeing this might be tricky because of how the first clause is phrased: “only trained swimmers are lifeguards” means “all lifeguards are trained swimmers.” If we take that as an established premise (which it is), the next lifeguard at the local pool absolutely will be a trained swimmer.

This isn’t scattered facts about the past reasonably supporting a prediction about the future, though. This is a universal truth about all lifeguards across space and time supporting a prediction about the future.