This is the wrong flaw. (A) overlooks that Shopwell may want a certain outcome, but fail to obtain it. (I.e., it fails to show that its given conditional relationship applies.) By contrast, the stimulus confuses the necessary and sufficient conditions in a relationship.

This is the wrong flaw. (B) tell us that a sufficient condition (decreased fares) triggers a necessary condition (decreased financial stability). But it fails to justify its assumption that increasing the sufficient condition will always increase the necessary condition. (For example, if you water a plant, it will grow, but watering it more doesn’t always cause it to grow more.) By contrast, the flaw in the stimulus is confusing necessary and sufficient conditions.

This is the wrong flaw. (C) takes a conditional relationship (if no leadership, then decreased respect) and assumes it’s still true if you negate both sides (if leadership, then increased respect). This is not a valid inference. By contrast, the flaw in the stimulus is confusing necessary and sufficient conditions.

(D) concludes that Eula must have won the Performance Fellowship. The reasoning is that Eula has received $10,000 from the college, and winners of the Fellowship receive $10,000 from the college.

This is the same cookie-cutter flaw of confusing necessary and sufficient conditions that we saw in the stimulus. Just because winning the fellowship leads to a prize of this sum doesn’t mean it’s the only time a prize of this sum is awarded.

This is a valid argument, unlike the stimulus. It correctly applies the contrapositive of the initial conditional statement.