(A) is an invalid argument, so it can’t be parallel to the valid argument in the stimulus. Although the premises in (A) allow us to conclude that the important acting roles that the actors had were not in a “major” movie, this doesn’t imply that none of the actors worked in a movie last year. They could have had important roles in non-major movies, and could have have non-important roles in major movies.

(B) doesn’t reason by using the contrapositive, and it also involves application of a rule to a specific member of a set that’s subject to the rule. (B) starts by stating a rule — if it’s a hotel owned by the Bidmore Group, then it does not specialize in serving business travelers. The argument then applies that rule to a specific hotel — the Cray Springs is owned by the Bidmore group, so it doesn’t specialize in serving business travelers. This is valid, but it doesn’t use the same structure as the stimulus.

This validly reasons by using the contrapositive. The rule is that if someone is an employee in Pranwich’s marketing devision, they’ve never received a bonus. Since we know that every Pranwich systems analyst got a bonus last year, that allows the valid inference that the systems analysts were not in the marketing division last year.

(D) involves application of a rule to a specific instance that is subject to the rule (James Benson). This is different from the stimulus, which applies a rule to a whole class of things (books published last year), rather than a specific instance.

(E) is an invalid argument, so it can’t be parallel to the valid argument in the stimulus. The argument is invalid because Conway might install hardwood flooring for customers outside of Woodridge.