(A) would be more similar to the stimulus if the first sentence said “it is incoherent for someone to commit crimes and prevent crimes”. But (A) actually concludes that judges and officers shouldn’t commit crimes. The argument in the stimulus doesn’t make any argument about what people should or shouldn’t do.

(B) says that it’s impossible to intend to spill a glass of water accidentally, because if someone spills water accidentally, then it cannot have been intentional. (B) applies the reasoning that something cannot be accidental and intentional at the same time — that the two are incoherent. This is similar to the stimulus, which says that being justified and irrational is incoherent.

(C) talks about the perceptions of one’s neighbors, which the stimulus doesn’t mention. Unlike in the stimulus, (C) doesn’t say that living the good life and being unhappy are inherently and definitionally incompatible — it relies on some reasoning about what neighbors will see.

(D) doesn’t use the same structure of 2 things being impossible to have simultaneously — it just makes an argument for why doctors cannot diagnose themselves. It’s also not a solid argument. It assumes that performing self-diagnosis requires practicing good medicine.

(E) doesn’t use any conditional reasoning, and it doesn’t set out two things that are incompatible with each other. It’s also not a valid argument — it could be that the goldfish is safely in a tank and not at the disposal of the cat.