Mismatched premises and conclusion. The two possibilities (support or oppose) need to lead to the same outcome in order to match the stimulus, but (A) has them leading to different outcomes. And the conclusion of the stimulus is that a particular outcome is inevitable, whereas (A) is saying that either outcome could happen.

Also, support/oppose are not the only options for Chen; in the stimulus, the two options are the only ones available.

The argument establishes two possibilities (relocate or not) and has both possibilities conditionally lead to the same outcome (lose employees). The author then concludes that this outcome is inevitable.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (C) is creating a conditional chain through three factors (if money not appropriated, then problem gets out of control, then city councilors replaced), whereas the stimulus has two separate conditional statements.

The stimulus is saying that, regardless of choice, an outcome will happen. (C) is saying that a particular choice must be made to avoid an outcome.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. (D) has two conditional statements, like the stimulus, but there are two issues:

1. The two options given (small increase or large increase) are not the only two options; there could be no increase. So, the concluded outcome is not inevitable, like it is in the stimulus.
   
2. The outcomes in the conditional statements (restore pools and/or build rec center) are only about having the required funds; we weren’t told that this would be done.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. There are two issues:

1. Support/oppose are not the only options for Madsen; in the stimulus, the two options are the only available options.
   
2. There is a jump from the necessary conditions in the support (project will have effective spokesperson) to the conclusion (project’s success). The stimulus does not have this leap (it is “lose election” in support and conclusion).