This argument is valid based on the connection between the two premises. But this doesn’t parallel the structure of the stimulus, which did not involve a connection between the two premises.

This involves a valid conclusion based only on one premise; the other statement (concerning the first section of the revised code) doesn’t independently prove the conclusion true. Although that statement would prove that the first section of the revised code doesn’t apply to the Norton Building, the first statement, which concerns whether the revised tax code applies at all is what offers support for the conclusion.

(C) is not a valid argument, so it can’t parallel the valid argument in the stimulus. (C) isn’t valid because Elnor’s property taxes don’t have to be higher next year even if they’re reassessed. They might be reassessed to be lower.

This reaches a valid conclusion based on two premises, either one of which could prove the conclusion true independent of the other.

Premise 1:

new building with public space → exempt from taxes for 2 years

Premise 2:

new building in Alton district → exempt from taxes for 5 years

Since the large building is new (”recently completed”), has public space, and is in Alton, it’s exempt from taxes for at least the next year.

This argument is valid based on the connection between the two premises. But this doesn’t parallel the structure of the stimulus, which did not involve a connection between the two premises.