Mismatched premises and conclusion. This concludes that Phyllis’ circumstance (not making much money) doesn’t explain her action (not buying expensive clothes), since, even under different circumstances, she’s always taken that same action. But the stimulus concludes that the politicians’ goal doesn’t explain an action, since they could accomplish the same goal more easily with a different action.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. This concludes that Brooks’ circumstance (having a job) doesn’t explain his school outcome, since other students have the same circumstance, but a different outcome. The stimulus, meanwhile, concludes that the politicians’ goal doesn’t explain their action, because the same politicians could reach their goal more easily with a different action.

Mismatched premises and conclusion. This concludes that Sallie and Jim’s differences don’t explain why they can’t work together, since they could’ve resolved those differences. It doesn’t mention a goal or a more effective way of reaching it. But the stimulus concludes that the politicians’ goal doesn’t explain their action, since they could have reached that goal more easily with a different action.

Mismatched premises. This concludes that Roger’s goal (more companionship) doesn’t explain his action (adopting cats), since he wouldn’t have taken that action under different circumstances. But the stimulus concludes that the politicians’ goal doesn’t explain their action, since they could’ve reached the goal more easily through a different action.

Thelma has a goal: to become famous. The argument explains that her goal can’t be the only reason she chose a certain action (theatrical acting), since she could’ve accomplished the goal more easily through a different action (writing and directing).