The bridge closure may affect many people, but the author’s conclusion is based on premises about Marion’s schedule and needs. He’s not mistaking a situation that affects many people for one that affects Marion alone because he’s only addressing Marion’s particular situation.

This doesn’t point out the assumption that, just because Marion hates the train, she won’t take the train. Also, the argument is only about whether Marion will be late for work; the author doesn’t need to consider all the consequences of her being late.

This is the cookie-cutter “whole-to-part” flaw. But like (A), the author’s conclusion is based on premises about Marion’s schedule and needs, not on premises about people in general.

Marion hates the train. The author takes this evidence to mean that she won’t take the train and will drive instead. He mistakenly uses this to exclude the alternative possibility that she might still take the train, despite hating it.

The author isn’t assuming that Marion won’t take the train because she doesn’t have a good reason for doing it. Instead, he’s assuming that Marion won’t take the train because she hates taking the train.