Mismatched conclusion. The strength of the conclusion of (A) does not match the strength of the conclusion of the stimulus. The stimulus concludes that something certainly will not happen; the conclusion of (A) says that something is likely.

Mismatched premises. The stimulus gives a sufficient condition with two independent necessary conditions, then negates one of those necessary conditions. (B) gives a sufficient condition (Leon going) with one necessary condition (Vera going), then negates the sufficient condition (/Leon going).

The diagram of (C) matches the diagram of the stimulus:

Mismatched premises and conclusion. The stimulus gives a sufficient condition with two independent necessary conditions. (D) gives a sufficient condition (Paula working with Elise) with one necessary condition (Jane working with Arthur).

The stimulus makes a straightforward conclusion that Alice will not volunteer; (D) makes a conditional conclusion (/Paula→ Arthur with Jane and Elise)

Mismatched conclusion. Unlike the stimulus, (E) makes a conditional conclusion (/rain→work).