This matches the reasoning, because it involves simply rewording the same underlying conditional relationship:

driver is not arrested → driver doesn’t break the law

In this case, the reworded version is in the contrapositive form:

driver breaks the law → driver is arrested

This is fine, since both versions are still just different ways of wording the same underlying conditional relationship.

This doesn’t match the reasoning, because the reworded version is an entirely different conditional relationship.

Original statement:
driver is not arrested → driver doesn’t break the law

Reworded version:
driver is arrested → driver broke the law

(The reworded version swaps the sufficient and necessary conditions.)

This doesn’t match the reasoning, because the reworded version is an entirely different conditional relationship.

Original statement:
supported by government grant → successful

Reworded version:
successful → supported by government grant

(The reworded version swaps the sufficient and necessary conditions.)

This doesn’t match the reasoning, because the reworded version is an entirely different conditional relationship.

Original statement:
supported by government grant → successful

Reworded version:
not supported by government grant → not successful

(The reworded version swaps the sufficient and necessary conditions.)

This doesn’t match the reasoning, because the reworded version is an entirely different conditional relationship.

Original statement:
supported by government grant → successful

Reworded version:
allowed to do research → supported by government grant

(The reworded version introduces the new concept of being allowed to do research. It changes “supported by government grant” to a necessary condition.)