Wrong flaw. This argument isn’t perfectly valid—it’s theoretically possible that some environmental factor causes cats to have kittens of the same color. But (A) is much stronger than the stimulus, because it’s not possible that the reverse causation is true. Having kittens of a color can’t cause a cat to have been born that same color!

Wrong flaw. There’s no evidence to suggest that water is causing intoxication—it’s probably the alcohol it’s mixed with! But there’s no correlation established in (B) the way there is in the stimulus: the argument doesn’t say that people tend to be drunk whenever they drink water, the way people who take advanced math tend to have high GPAs. It just says that some drinks that have water in them cause intoxication.

No flaw. The conclusion of this argument is not strongly worded—it just says that eating a fatty and carb-heavy diet may cause weight gain. The correlation between being overweight and eating such diets is enough to establish that such a causation is possible, and that’s all the conclusion in (C) claims. The stimulus, however, concludes that a specific causation is certain.

This argument states that buying running shoes should cause a person’s exercise frequency to increase, because there is a correlation between people who buy two or more pairs of running shoes per year and people who tend to exercise more often. This is the same cookie-cutter correlation vs. causation flaw: neither (D) nor the stimulus rule out the possibility that the reverse causation is true, or that there’s a third, separate cause of both factors.

Wrong flaw. This argument isn’t perfectly valid—it’s theoretically possible that some third factor causes children to both not be read to and to be less likely to develop an interest in reading later. But (E) is much stronger than the stimulus, because it’s not possible that the reverse causation is true. Not having an interest in reading later in life can’t cause you to not be read to as a child!