No flaw here, and the direction is backwards. (A) reasons from parts (each word) to the whole (the book). And, if every word in a book is French, the whole book is in French. That makes sense. We need a flawed argument that goes from whole to parts, so (A) fails on both counts.

There's no flaw. "Unanimously" means every single member voted the same way. So concluding that Martinez voted to adopt the plan is a valid conclusion. We need a flawed argument.

This matches. A property of the whole (the paragraph is long) is attributed to each part (every sentence must be long). And it's flawed: a long paragraph could easily be made up of many short sentences.

Stimulus

The collection is valuable.

So each work is unaffordable.

(C)

The paragraph is long. ✓

So each sentence is long. ✓

Same direction (whole → part), same flaw (property of the whole doesn't necessarily apply to each individual part).

(D) is flawed, but the direction is backwards. It reasons from parts (the members are old) to the whole (the company is old). A company founded last year could be staffed entirely by retirees, so the reasoning doesn't work. But the stimulus goes from whole to parts, not parts to whole.

Same problem as (D). (E) is flawed (a molecule made of elements isn't necessarily itself an element; water is made of hydrogen and oxygen but isn't an element), but it reasons from parts (atoms) to the whole (molecule). That's part-to-whole, which is the reverse of what the stimulus does.