Mismatched premises. The stimulus tells us that, since one thing has an objective quality, we know that a second thing has that objective quality too. (A) proceeds by comparing a quality that may vary from person to person (jumping ability).

Mismatched premises. The stimulus tells us that, since one thing has an objective quality, we know that a second thing has that objective quality too. (B) proceeds by comparing a quality that may vary from person to person (impact of cigarettes on running ability).

Mismatched premises. In the stimulus, one thing is under a limit, and something less than that is also under the limit.

In (C), one person (John) is over the legal BAC limit, and because another person (Paul) is below the first person, the argument concludes that the second person must be over the limit, too. This is not a valid argument––it could totally be the case that the second person is below the limit.

Mismatched premises. In the stimulus, one thing is under a limit, and something less than that is also under the limit.

In (D), one chocolate is below the threshold for darkness. A second chocolate is darker than the first chocolate, so the argument concludes that the second chocolate must be dark enough. This is not a valid argument––it could totally be the case that the second chocolate is darker than the first, but still not dark enough.

The argument proceeds by telling us that one thing (sharp cheddar cheese) falls under a certain limit (fat content for “low fat” cheese). Because something else (mild cheddar cheese) is less than the original thing (sharp cheddar cheese), we know that the second thing falls under the limit, too.