This is a valid argument, unlike the stimulus. If all students at this school take math, and Miguel is a student at this school, he must take math. (A) relies on a property of the group that is defined as a property of all the individuals in it. By contrast, the stimulus commits the cookie-cutter flaw of attributing properties of a whole to each individual part.

(B) concludes that, because a description (writing on many issues) applies to a group (the journal) as a whole, it must apply to an individual member (Louise). But, just because the journal as a whole covers many issues, it doesn’t mean each individual contributor has to. This is the same cookie-cutter flaw as the stimulus: attributing properties of a whole to each individual part.

This is a valid argument, unlike the stimulus. The property (heaviness) of an individual part in this case also applies to the group as a whole. By contrast, the stimulus commits the cookie-cutter flaw of attributing properties of a whole to each individual part.

This is the wrong flaw. (D) takes a conditional relationship and erroneously negates it. By contrast, the stimulus commits the cookie-cutter flaw of attributing properties of a whole to each individual part.

This is the wrong error. (E) looks at a property each individual part has, and mistakenly assumes it applies to the whole. By contrast, the stimulus looks at a property the whole has, and erroneously assumes it applies to each individual part.