The principle we're looking for needs to tell us when dismissing a complaint would be unfair. (A) doesn't involve fairness at all, so it can't bridge to the correct conclusion. All this does is tell us the Bureau staff didn't do their job in correctly informing McBride, but we already know that.

Like (A), this is irrelevant to the issue of fairness. We need a principle that bridges to the conclusion is that dismissing McBride's complaint would be "unfair," and (B) doesn't say anything about fairness.

The support establishes that McBride used the wrong form because the Bureau made a mistake—in other words, the agency acted incorrectly. That triggers (C), which then leads to the conclusion that it would be unfair to dismiss her complaint for this reason. Bridging the gap of "unfairness" justifies the argument.

Like (A) and (B), this is irrelevant—it doesn't involve fairness at all. Whether or not agency employees can understand the procedures, this doesn't tell us why dismissing the complaint would be unfair, so it can't get us to the right conclusion.

This principle discusses unfairness, but we're concerned with something being unfair for McBride, not for the nightclub. So although this looks close, it doesn't get to the right conclusion. We also don't know whether the nightclub has an opportunity to defend itself, so this principle doesn't trigger either.