The argument proceeds by noting a correlation between two variables (supplies used and number of students). It states that the two variables are proportional to each other: the higher one variable is, the higher the other is too. By noting that one variable (number of students) was especially high at a certain time, it concludes that the other variable (supplies used) must also have been especially high at that same time.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. The argument presents two variables (painting courses and students) that are proportional to each other. It concludes that, because a third variable (sculpture courses) is the same each term, there are usually more painting than sculpture courses. The stimulus, meanwhile, presents two proportional variables and concludes that one was high since the other was high at the same time.

Mismatched conclusion. The argument presents two variables (new students enrolled and advertising done in the past year) that are proportional to each other. It then draws a conditional conclusion: if the institute wants more new students, it must spend more on advertising. The stimulus, meanwhile, presents two proportional variables and concludes that one was high since the other was high at the same time.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. The argument presents two variables (a student’s fees and the number of classes that student is enrolled in) that are proportional to each other. It then concludes that, since a third variable (number of students at the institute) is rising, a fourth variable (overall student fees) is also rising. The stimulus only addresses two variables.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. The argument presents one variable (number of instructors) that’s proportional to two other variables (number of classes and students). It then concludes that those two variables (classes and students) are directly proportional to each other. The stimulus only presents two proportional variables, concluding that one was high since the other was high at the same time.