Mismatched premises. While (A) does include an argument by analogy, the analogy in (A) is about something (lion) not doing something that is already considered to be necessary for that thing (eating meat), while the analogy in the stimulus is about having an ability but not using it. (A) is missing the emphasis on having the capacity to do something new.

Mismatched premises. While (B) does include an argument by analogy, (B) uses a hypothetical scenario in which some group (explorers) visited a place (North America) but didn’t do something there (build cities) to claim that it is ridiculous to argue that another group (aliens) has visited a place (Earth). This does not parallel the analogy in the stimulus, which is about having an ability but not using it.

The argument operates by using an analogy about having an ability but not using it (in this example, that an insect had legs but never walked) to support the conclusion that a certain claim is improbable (that the human brain has telekinetic powers that nobody has used).

Mismatched premises. (D) does use an argument by analogy, but the argument in the stimulus is based on the fact that the things that aren’t being done (in the stimulus, language and flying) provide an enormous advantage. However, the things that aren’t being done in (D) (smoking and drinking) do not provide enormous advantages. There are plenty of valid reasons to avoid smoking and drinking.

Mismatched premises. The analogy in (E) is a bit off. (E) compares having something (cars) and never using them in general with inventing something (gasoline) and never using it for one specific purpose (fuel for transportation). Additionally, the analogy in (E) is not about having an ability but not using it.